I have to answer those twisted distorted, defamatory statements, put out about me and the NRP on Brantley’s ‘Voice of Scorn’, on the internet and in The Observer. He concocts a case falsely to claim that the NRP colluded with me or my lawyers to pay me a large sum of money for an interest in land which had not been adjudicated upon. He claims that the NRP should have fought the case in court. He says “but the matter never went to court, and in light of the relationship that we know exists between Mr. Gaskell and the government, that he has been in the press supporting the NRP, you have to ask why it is that the NRP did not defend this case and get an adjudication from the court. You know what this thing says…” Brantley talks about the size of the settlement and says “you do big things for big supporters, that’s the way the NRP does this”.
As you will see, if you follow this article to the end, Premier Parry and his NRP administration never had any realistic chance of fighting the case in Court for, five months before he came to office, we had applied to the Court to determine the terms for a Judgement in Default.
Surprisingly, Michael Perkins used ‘The Voice of Scorn’ to say “If the matter was before the Court why didn’t the government of the day allow it to go through the Court system and let the Court hear the facts?” Good question Perkins, but why don’t you answer it – you were in the government of the day. Our amended statement of claim was filed on September 28th 2005. In spite of several requests to lawyer Henry Browne, representing the Nevis Housing and Land Development Corporation (NHLDC) and M. Guishard, no defence was put in to that amended claim. The CCM had nine months before exiting office in which to file an amended defence. They failed to do so. How can you and Brantley now ask Parry to defend it? Of course I can answer your question. You did not dare let the case go to trial, because you knew you would lose, so you failed to file any defence to my amended statement of claim and thus allowed/forced me to proceed to judgement. I would have welcomed a day in Court, but you could not face it.
So, here, for you and other readers, is a historical analysis of the matter.
In 1964 I purchased Montpelier Estate, and built Montpelier Hotel. I resurfaced the old public road from Cole Hill to Montpelier, and later cut and made up a road from Cole Hill down the Steep Hill towards Cox and up to Montpelier and on to the Botanical Gardens. All at my own expense.
In 1964 and until 1986 there was no sign of any road at the western end of Montpelier. The land was pasture. Also in 1964 I had a wire fence put around the estate. No one suggested that an old public road had been fenced. I had no idea that anyone would ever make such a claim. The fence was undisturbed for 30 years. The older ordinance survey maps that I have which incorporate air photography done in the 1940s and 1950s show nothing by way of a road, not even a track, at the western end of Montpelier.
In or about 1986, I had a two track road made down at the western end of Montpelier, to about 40 yards from the boundary of Low Ground Estate.
In 1994, while I was away from Nevis, the NHLDC put a bulldozer through the boundary wall and fence. No one came to see me about it or ask permission, and initially I did not know who was responsible. On 21st September 1994 I wrote to Livingston Herbert, manager NHLDC, saying “…If the fence removal was done by the Corporation…I should be glad of your assurance that it was done in error and will not happen again.” My next letter to him was that of September 28th 1994, referring to our meeting that morning. Part of that letter reads “you said that the Corporation was planning a seven acre development on Low Ground Estate, where it bounds to Montpelier. And that you sought an understanding that the Corporation might take a road through Montpelier Estate”. I told him that I could not agree to that, since I had sold land in that area to third parties on the basis that their road was quiet, a cul-de-sac, a dead end.
I heard nothing further until on the 20th of February 1995 Malcolm Guishard, Minister of Lands, wrote to me to say “the NIA is interested in acquiring that portion of road commencing at Baileys Yard and continuing to Low Ground Estate road…I shall be grateful to receive an estimate of the cost involved in purchasing your interest in the road as set out above”. I replied on February 22nd 1995 “…your letter…is the first indication to me that the government wishes to buy some Montpelier Estate lands and make a public road from them…” I then go on to say that I can instruct my lawyers to negotiate a price to be paid by government and that he should let them know exactly what land was required. Neither I nor my lawyers heard further.
Eight years later, on the 24th of March 2003, I had a call from Ted Hobson – then legal advisor to the NIA – who told me that he had advised the Crown (the NIA) to remove the boulders which sit on a particular piece of land at the western end of Montpelier estate. I wrote to him on 27th of March 2003 “I think it is for you to seek a declaration from the courts to allow you to put a bulldozer through my private land when you have been refused my permission to do so. It seems extraordinary that you would (and told me that you already had) advise(d) the crown without having seen and studied the correspondence on the matter between myself and Livingstone Herbert in 1994/5, and before you had actually interviewed the senior citizens who were, you indicated, going to tell you that the affected land was a ‘roadway’, or where they had walked when younger. Had you seen the file, you would have learnt that I have been in undisturbed quiet possession for 39 years, except for the one occasion and time in 1994 when the NHLDC put a bulldozer through without my permission or knowledge. I restored the status quo by putting some boulders there which have remained undisturbed ever since. When my surveyor Steele Douglas surveyed Montpelier Estate in 1964 he found an ‘old time’ stone wall forming the boundary between Montpelier and Low Ground estates. Senior citizens who speak to me confirm that this was the case. In the light of this information it is clear that an authorisation by you would, prima face, be an order to trespass. That is why I think it is for you, not me the undisturbed land owner in possession, who should seek court sanction for any proposals you may have in respect of my land.”
On April 1st 2003 I received a letter from Ted Hobson, headed ‘Public road at western end of Montpelier’, which had a final paragraph “this letter is a final notice to you to remove the boulders so that the public can resume their passage on the road. If however you fail to do so, the administration will be forced to take action in the interest of the public”. Lawyer Jeffrey Nisbett answered on my behalf. He asked for clarification of the last paragraph, and said “…if you look beyond the narrow issues, you will no doubt agree with us that no persons’ property is safe if you and others summarily decide that the public enjoys rights over another’s property.” He asked for “urgent confirmation whether you intend to move the court to declare that the alleged ‘public road’ exists”. No answer came. The matter went to sleep again.
What would you have done if you had been put in a similar position? You have owned a piece of land for 30 years. You have it fenced. No one has ever told you that it doesn’t belong to you. When you are away, your government bulldozes your fence and the piece of ground where you have been growing your sweet potatoes for the last 30 years, and tells you that a public road runs through it and that it belongs to them. What do you do? Roll over and thank them very much for sending their bulldozer? Well, what I did was to say that if you want my land for a road you can negotiate for same with my lawyers, and then later, when Ted Hobson was threatening action by bulldozer, we said he should go to court to seek a declaration concerning the ownership and status of the land. Had the land been yours, would you not have done the same?
At about 6:00 p.m. on the night of Sunday March 6th, without warning, Guishard, Perkins and co. put the bulldozers in. I went up and spoke to both ministers who were standing and watching, “you have had all the papers. You know this is my land. Why have you not gone to court? I would ask you to instruct the backhoe to leave”. “We do not have to go to court,” said Guishard. Backhoe work continued.
I returned to the site on Monday March 7th 2005. I drove there in my landrover. A backhoe came right up to the front of my landrover and hooted to me to get out of the way. I remained. It was tense. The threat of physical damage to me and my landrover was real. I spoke by cell to my lawyer Geoffrey Nisbett. We concluded that there was no point risking physical injury. He advised me to come to the office to settle the appropriate legal action. I left the site.
That night we find Guishard on Von Radio saying in reference to the land “we did not make any offer to him. All we said to him was clear the debris which you put in the road. The road belongs to the people of Nevis”. Now you do not normally ask someone for an estimate of the cost involved in purchasing their interest in a piece of land if you think it already belongs to you!
In due course a writ and statement of claim was issued and served on defendants – the NHLDC, Guishard, and Perkins. A defence was filed. An amended statement of claim was issued and served on Montpelier’s behalf. Months went by but no defence to that amended claim was made. We applied for a Judgement in Default. It is on the Court file, but Brantley failed to ‘notice’ it. This was done on February the 9th 2006, almost exactly five months before the NRP came in to power. They would have noted that the CCM had failed for 9 months to defend an indefensible action and would therefore have concluded that all that remained to be done was an assessment for the price of the land. Lawyers for the parties asked professional valuers to give their values. I was told that the Government’s valuer had put a higher sum on it than that of our valuer. I said we would take the lower one. I don’t know what the other one was. Perkins, on ‘The Voice of Scorn’ claimed that the land was 600 sq. foot. This is false. The survey, I understand, measured the roadway, mostly made up by me in concrete, as 1208 feet long. I am not sure of the width of the road, but if it is 18 feet wide, then over half an acre is involved. I am not concerned about the price as some time ago I told my family and lawyers that I should put what comes my way from this affair into the school meals programme. So, in a way, the more it is and the sooner it comes, the better. Hastings Daniel and I have raised personally and both within and without the communities concerned just under EC$90,000.00 which has been applied to the re-equipping in a professional manner of the kitchens at the St. Thomas’s and St. John’s Primary Schools. We want to continue this work in other schools when money is available.
Brantley wrote “…Why did the NRP pay this money, especially now when Premier Parry has told us all how hard things are?” For the record I have not been paid but when I am the money will go toward the best public purpose I can think of, the provision of nutritious and palatable meals for our children. It is still a scandal that in 2009 a child can bring for his lunch just two slices of white bread with nothing in between at the school Brantley is closest to and went to himself, The Ivor Walters. It is difficult to understand why Brantley should deride my interest in this regard.
I recognised the voice of Franklyn Stapleton on a talk programme saying that he knew the Cox, St. Peter’s, Brown Hill area very well and that there were several public roads in the area and that he thought some people may have confused one of those old public roads with the place I put the boulders. Apart from Surveyor Douglas, the professional authority on this matter, who wrote to ‘Land and Housing’ in 1995 about this particular piece of land “… indeed there is no public road in the immediate vicinity of the proposed subdivision”, Franklyn also knows with certainty that there was no public road. He worked on the erection of the wire fence around the SW boundary of Montpelier in 1964. He remembers the stone wall which ran undisturbed across what is now the new road.
Brantley is right about one thing. I do use the new road. It is convenient. It is partly because of this that I do not wish to profit from it.
The people of Nevis, and especially Premier Parry are owed a full apology for these misleading and defamatory statements. As for me, I just find it truly disappointing that this public figure, shortly to seek re-election can seek to wound and maim his opponents in this cunning, devious and distorted fashion. We are commanded ‘Do not bear false witness against your neighbour’. What is this perversion of the truth if it is not that.
