NASSAU, BAHAMAS — The London-based Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will deliberate on whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss constitutional relief afforded to Bahamas-born Jean Rony Jean-Charles due to procedural issues.
Namely, whether Supreme Court Justice Gregory Hilton should not have determined a constitutional application under Article 28 of the Constitution of The Bahamas, providing for the enforcement of fundamental rights, in circumstances where a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed.
Yesterday, legal teams representing Jean-Charles and the Office of the Attorney General of the Bahamas gave submissions during a hearing before Justices Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Kitchin, Lord Hamblen, and Lady Rose.
In its case summary, the London-based court set out that Jean-Charles was born in The Bahamas in 1982.
“In September 2017, he was arrested and detained by immigration officers after failing to produce documents proving his lawful presence in The Bahamas. He was expelled to Haiti on 24 November 2017. The Appellant (Jean-Charles) was not charged with any offense or taken to any court prior to his expulsion, nor was any detention order made in respect of him.”
The case summary continued: An ex parte application for a writ of habeas corpus was issued on the Appellant’s behalf, followed by an application for constitutional relief pursuant to Article 28 of the Constitution.
“(Supreme Court Justice Gregory Hilton) dismissed the writ of habeas corpus but granted constitutional relief to the Appellant, finding that his detention and expulsion had been unlawful and that his constitutional rights had been breached. Hilton J made various remedial orders which facilitated the Appellant’s return to The Bahamas, where he remains to date.”
The case summary read: “The Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal on the basis that it was not open to the Judge to determine the constitutional motion after having dismissed the writ of habeas corpus. The Appellant cross-appealed the decision to dismiss the writ of habeas corpus. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the Respondents’ appeal and dismissed the Appellant’s cross-appeal.”
Jean-Charles’ appeal to the Board contends that Hilton was correct to grant him constitutional relief or, alternatively, that the Court of Appeal should have exercised its jurisdiction to grant such relief.
He told Eyewitness News that he was anxious to have the matter resolved so that he could financially support himself and finally regain his independence.
