Features

Mixed reactions to Portmore toll court ruling

Work on the disputed Portmore leg of Highway 2000 continues at a rapid pace as the contractors push for a January 2006 deadline to complete that segment of the toll road. - RUDOLPH BROWN

THE DECISION IN the legal battle between Portmore residents and the government over the Portmore leg of Highway 2000 has been met with mixed reactions from members of the public.

There are those who feel that the residents should not pursue an appeal but should negotiate with the government to be exempt from paying a toll. Some say the residents should pay a special toll which would be less than other users of the road.

Others are adamant that Mandela Highway should not be the alternative route and, therefore, the decision should be appealed.

The claimants to the suit which were the Portmore Citizens Advisory Council and the Portmore Joint Citizens Association had brought the motion seeking an interpretation of the Toll Roads Act under which the Minister of Transport and Works had designated the toll road and the alternative route. The claimants contended that the minister was in breach of the Toll Roads Act when he designated the alternative route. The residents claimed that the alternative route should be in the same area as the toll road and had relied on section 8 (2) of the Toll Roads Act. They argued that the section was mandatory.

The section states "No road shall be designated as a toll road under subsection (1) (a) unless in the area in which the toll road is to be established there is an alternative route accessible to the public by vehicular and other traffic".

One of the functions of the courts is to interpret the law and this was what Miss Justice Gloria Smith had to do in the Judicial Review Court this week.

Reasonable distance

Government lawyers argued that "in the area" was not defined in the act because Parliament realised that those words must be necessarily imprecise in order to work in any possible situation, especially in a country as geographically and geologically varied as Jamaica. They argued that in the area meant within a reasonable distance.

The judge interpreted the act and said that the minister exercised his discretion to designate a toll road in the proper and lawful manner as there was indeed a lawful designated alternative route to the toll road. The judge ruled that "the designated alternative route is lawful as it is within the area of the toll road and is accessible to vehicular and other traffic as is required by the Toll Roads Act". The judge said the minister chose the most reasonable route for the alternative route.