amount to substantial non-compliance with electoral law. They further contended that any breach of electoral law which may have occurred did not affect the results in the elections. The trial judge found that the issue of late voting (voting after 6.00pm) was properly pleaded and therefore raised a triable issue. She held that Rule 1(7) of the Election Rules required the polls to open for voting to begin at 6.00am and to close at 6.00pm. She found, as a matter of fact, that there was no voting by any person who allegedly entered the lines in the St. John’s Rural West constituency after 6.00pm. She further found, as a matter of fact, that there was late voting in the St. George and St. John’s Rural West constituencies by persons who were in the lines by 6.00pm, but who were permitted to vote after 6.00pm. She held, however, that Rule 1(7) of the Election Rules permitted persons in line at 6.00pm to vote after 6.00pm because this was in keeping with an elector’s constitutional right to vote pursuant to section 40 of the Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda. The judge accordingly held that the voting which took place after 6.00pm did not breach Rule 1(7). The learned judge found that the use of the ‘photo lists’ breached section 25(1) [sic section 24] of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, No. 17 of 2001. However, she held that the use of the ‘photo lists’ did not result in an election which was a sham or a travesty so that it prevented substantial compliance with electoral laws. The trial judge held, additionally, that the use of the ‘photo lists’ did not affect the results in the contested constituencies. Premised on her decision that Rule 1(7) of the Election Rules required the polls to open for voting to begin at 6.00am and close at 6.00pm, the judge held that the late opening of the polls in the 3 contested constituencies breached Rule 1(7). Notwithstanding this, she found that the late opening and the consequent late start of voting did not cause substantial non-compliance with the law as to elections, having regard to the amount of time during which the polls were open and the high percentage voter turnout in each of the contested constituencies so that the election was not a sham or a travesty. She found, however, that some persons were denied the right to vote due to the late opening of the polls in the 3 constituencies. She stated that although she was unable to say how many such persons there denied the right to vote in each case about 20% of the electors did not vote. However, the trial judge concluded that an indeterminate number of persons were disenfranchised because of the late opening of the polls. She was therefore not satisfied that the late opening did not affect the final result in each of the contested constituencies. She accordingly invalidated the election in the 3 constituencies, and ordered the parties to bear their own costs. The respondents appealed, seeking to set aside the orders of the trial judge. The petitioners counter-appealed against the judge’s finding of fact that there was no late voting in the St. John’s Rural West constituency by voters who joined the line after 6.00pm. They also challenged the judge’s findings that Rule 1(7) of the Election Rules permitted voting after 6.00pm by persons who were in the lines by 6.00pm. They also contended that the judge should have found that the effect of the breaches of electoral law, which occurred due to the late opening of the polls, late voting and the use of ‘photo lists’ were so 4