-
c o n t r a d i c t t h e a f f i d a v i t e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d by t h e A u t h o r i t y .
Mr.
P a t r i c k Robinson s u b m i t t e d on b e h a l f o f t h e A u t h o r i t y
f i r s t t h a t t h e e l e c t i o n should b e d e c l a r e d void on t h e f i r s t ground
and s e c o n d l y t h a t a l l t h e e v i d e n c e o f b r e a c h e s , mishaps, m i s t a k e s
and i r r e g u l a r i t i e s w h i c h have b e e n adduced t o s u b s t a n t i a t e Grounds
1, 2
6
3 f o r t h e v o i d i n g o f P o l l i n g ~ i v i s i o nwhen
~
taken cumulative-
l y w i l l a l s o substantiate the voiding of the taking of poll i n the
c o n s t i t u e n c y as a whole.
Further, the' evidence o f a l l the irregula;ities
which
support each s p e c i f i c ground i n r e s p e c t o f voiding o f p o l l i n g clivisions
w i l l e i t h e r c u m u l a t i v e l y o r i n some c a s e s b y i t s e l f s u b s t a n t i a t e
the voiding of the taking of the Poll i n the constituency.
He cited
a number o f a u t h o r i t i e s t o s u p p o r t h i s s u b m i s s i o n s .
-C"
Mrs.
Walcott on behalf o f M r .
Andrew H o l n e s s s u b m i t t e d t h a t
t h e a f f i d a v i t s f i l e d by t h e c o n s t i t u t e d A u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t o f
t h e a p p l i c a t i o n erriznate f r o m P r e s i d i n g O f f i c e r s a n d P o l l C l c r k s
who a r e e m p l o y e e s o f t h e E l e c t o r a l O f f i c e o f J a m a i c a w h i c h f o r m s
p a r t o f t h e C o n s t i t u t e d A u t h o r i t y and t h e r e f o r e l a c k c r e d i b i l i t y .
The i r r e g u l a r i t i e s r e l a t e t o v a r i o u s s e c t i o n s of' t h e R e p r e s e n t a t i o n
o f t h e P e o p l e A c t w h i c h p r o v i d e f o r t h e i r own p e n a l t y f o r s u c h
breaches and should n o t f o r m t h e b a s i s for voiding a n e l e c t i o n .
C
N o independent elector h a s complained t h a t h e i s d i s e n f r a n c h i s e d
because o f t h e b r e a c h e s and i r r e g u l a r i t i e s under t h e ~ c t . She
f u r t h e r s u b m i t t e d t h a t no w e i g h t s h o u l d t h e r e f o r e b e a t t a c h e d t o
the evidence.
I f i n d t h a t thes'e s u b m i s s i o n s a r e misconceived and
c a n n o t w i t h s t a n d any o b j e c t i v e a n a l y s i s .
The c u r r e n t l e g i s l a t i o n