Harold Brady, attorney-at-law for Infochannel, has complained that he can’t get to take his client’s case to the United Kingdom Privy Council, because the local appellate court has failed to state why it reversed a Constitutional Court ruling in Infochannel’s favour, five months after.

“This could not happen anywhere else, it would not be tolerated,” Brady protested to the Sunday Observer.

Brady had convinced the Constitutional Court that telecommunications giant, Cable and Wireless’ monopoly on the delivery of domestic land-line telephony and international calls was illegal. But C&W took the case to the Appeal Court where judges Paul Harrison, Seymour Panton and F A Smith overturned the ruling which deemed sections of the Telecommunications Act of 2000 unconstitutional, and endorsed a $27-million claim by Infochannel for breach of its constitutional rights to freedom of speech.

That decision, a verbal one which came three weeks after the hearing of C&W’s appeal against the Constitutional Court’s decision, was accompanied by a promise by the appeal court judges to put their reasons in writing later on.

Brady said those reasons would have enabled him to press Infochannel’s appeal to the London-based Privy Council. But to date, the lawyer said, he had received neither the reasons nor any indication of when they would be ready.

“It’s my understanding that constitutional matters take precedence over others… so this is inexplicable,” he remarked.

Solictor General Michael Hylton, who represented the government’s position in the case, agreed that the longer the court took to deliver its decision in the matter, the greater the cost would be to the government, in the event that the Privy Council sided with Infochannel.

“…But that is not really an issue for me. The entire appeal process will take two to two-and-a- half years, and an additional month or two of interest won’t make that much difference. My greater concern is the resolution of this outstanding issue as to the constitutionality of an important statute. That was by far the more serious consequence of the Supreme Court’s ruling. The amount to be paid is minor in comparison,” he argued.

Unlike Brady, Hylton is not outraged by the delay: “… This is not an unreasonable delay, when you compare it to other matters. What makes it stand out is that the Court advised us of their decision quickly, then has taken a while to give the written reasons. What usually happens is that they say nothing until the reasons are ready, which is much worse,” he contended.

Infochannel’s owner, Patrick Terrelonge, has a long and protracted legal battle with Cable and Wireless and the Government over his company’s right to provide its clients with certain telecommunications services, including the ability to make voice calls over the Internet. He felt vindicated last year December when the Constitutional Court ruled in his company’s favour and upheld his $27-million claim for lost revenue. But his celebration was short-circuited by the Appeal Court’s reversal of the ruling.