Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda. Accordingly, she held that the voting which took place after 6:00pm did not breach Rule 1(7). [13] The trial judge further held that the use of the ‘photo lists’ breached electoral law, more particularly, section 25(1) [sic section 24] of the Representation of the People Act. However, she held that, in all of the circumstances, the use of the ‘photo lists’ did not result in a sham or a travesty that prevented substantial compliance with electoral law. She further held that the use of the ‘photo lists’ did not affect the results in the 3 contested constituencies. [14] Notwithstanding that the trial judge found that the late opening of the polling stations and the consequent late start of voting breached Rule 1(7) of the Election Rules, she held that the late opening did not cause substantial non-compliance with the law as to elections. This, she said, was because of the high percentage of the voter turnout in each of the contested constituency bordering on 80% of the registered electors. In those circumstances she found that the election was not a sham or a travesty. [15] However, the judge found that an indeterminate number of persons were denied the right to vote due to the late opening. In those circumstances, she held that in order to avoid invalidation she had to be satisfied that the late start did not affect the results. She stated that given the large percentage of persons who did not vote (20%), she was not so satisfied that the late opening did not affect the final result in each contested constituency. In those premises she invalidated the election in the 3 constituencies. [16] The judge ordered the parties to bear their own costs in the High Court proceedings. 12