KINGSTON, Jamaica — Caricel in a release this afternoon said that it is comfortable with the legal basis on which the Supreme Court made its judgment today, in its case seeking to block the Government from revoking its mobile spectrum licence.

In a statement Caricel’s company secretary, Minett Lawrence, said:

“We are comforted by the legal basis on which the Court found that the matter should not go forward for judicial review.

The Court found that the errors or mistakes in the notices were harmless, and agreed with the agencies that they were merely informing us of their intentions. It is in this regard that the judge determined the matter would not go forward.

“There was unanimous agreement between all parties and the Court that the notices were bad; however the Court found that the process embarked on by the agencies was not one which required any notification to the company and did not affect the rights to the licence or the company’s rights to be heard and to defend itself, at all the stages that a proper investigation or regulatory proceeding must entail.

“We were especially comforted by his finding that the alleged threat to national security was not apparent, or in existence at this time, and he felt that on the evidence the agencies could only proceed to look at issues pertaining to the company’s operations and licence.

“He clarified for our benefit, that our apprehension that there was a predetermination that the company had breached its licence, was unfounded. He found that the process, properly understood from the letters was one in which the agencies would investigate whether or not there was a breach and he reminded us that the law guarantees us a right to be heard even in that process”.

Lawrence explained that:

“The Supreme Court has ruled against Caricel on its application for leave to seek judicial review of two letters issued by the OUR and the SMA.

“The letters purported to be notices of investigation into reports from a foreign government by way of the Minister of National Security, which both agencies stated may result in recommendations for the suspension or revocation of Caricel’s licences.

“Those letters were viewed by the company as an extreme act of hostility, issued in a manner which appeared to deprive the company of protections afforded it by law in defense of its licences.

“In the course of the proceedings in Court, both agencies submitted to the Court that the letters were erroneously issued under the wrong statutory provisions, and the purpose of the letters was simply to inform the company of the reports made to them, and of their intention to investigate those reports”.