The Cayman Islands premier dodged a bullet this afternoon and he wasn’t walking anywhere near a certain restaurant in West Bay.

Alden McLaughlin’s Achilles Heel, as I have referred to, IMMIGRATION, and his refusal to obey the Information Commissioner’s Order to provide him [the Information Commissioner] with a copy of the legal advice given to the Government by Ritch and Conolly on the issue of permanent residency, could have blown up in his face.

However, we learn today the Chief Justice, Anthony Smellie, ruled in his favour,

Our premier is a lawyer but I have to admit when he refused to obey the Information Commissioner on the grounds of “legal professional privilege” I thought it was a clever ruse to delay the inevitable until after the May election. There was something in that document he did not want us to see.

I was wrong. 100% wrong.

The Chief Justice wrote 44 pages explaining his ruling and it was indeed, as McLaughlin, said written with “great clarity”. Even I could understand the reasoning.

The Chief Justice said:

Legal professional privilege is an absolute and fundamental right, recognised by the FOI Law itself;

• In the absence of clear and unambiguous words, legal professional privilege can be regarded as subject to being infringed only by the necessary implication of other provisions of the FOI Law, here in particular, section 45;

• The important objective of the FOI Law of ensuring public access to government information does not itself give rise to the necessary implication that the objective takes precedence over the equally important public interest in the preservation of legal professional privilege;

• Neither expressly, nor by necessary implication, does the FOI Law vest the Information Commissioner with the power to infringe or abrogate legal professional privilege. It is also doubtful that he can call for the legal advice given to the Government without purporting to nullify the Premier’s certification of exemption issued pursuant to section 25 of the FOI Law;

• For those reasons, the Order made by the Information Commissioner is of doubtful validity and efficacy;

• In seeking to exercise its powers of contempt for the enforcement of the Order, the Court, both as a matter of the proper exercise of its oversight jurisdiction and as a matter of its proper exercise of discretion must first be satisfied that the Order, like an Order of the Court itself, is valid and enforceable and that it would be appropriate to do so;

• For all the foregoing reasons, in the present circumstances it would not be appropriate to enforce the Order. The Commissioner’s reference was therefore refused.

The Government Press Release that gave the announcement of the Chief Justice’s ruling sis not in fact lead with this story.

Knowing the concern from all sides of the community, especially the business sector, who are particularly ticked off about it, the release lead with the news – “Following an extensive period of consultation, Cabinet will shortly consider amendments to the Immigration Regulations that, once approved, will allow the various Immigration boards to continue processing applications for permanent residency and for the Immigration Appeals Tribunal to hear PR appeals.”

The missing piece, however, tis he date when they will actually sit down and consider these amendments.

“Shortly” means what? Before the election at the next and last session of this administration? If that was the case that would have been announced.

I expect it will be left to go into the Progressives Election manifesto. In there we will find, no doubt the solution to the “vexing issue” that has not only been “vexing” for the persons’ impacted” (sounds like the Waste Management problem) but also for the premier himself and the government.

I am not sure any of us will be reassured with the premier’s last sentence “However, we continue to be committed to finding a solution that is fair to all concerned and get the process moving again”.

Moving again. Using the premier’s own words: “The root of the issue goes back to systems and processes that have been in place from the introduction of the points system in 2004.”

2004!!

Where I have to point the finger, however, is at this government who put in a points system that was so unfair no one could get the necessary points because of the arbitrary powers given to the Immigration Board who must have had a directive not to rule in the favour of the impacted persons.

And where did that directive come from?

I have been wrong today so I will not give an opinion. Otherwise I might have to duck a bullet.