This Week at The Caribbean Court of Justice

There are 3 matters appearing before the Caribbean Court of Justice the week of June 29 – July 3, 2020. All matters are broadcast live on the Court’s YouTube channel. The summaries of each case are on the Court’s website at www.ccj.org. Click the View Live Broadcast button to access the live stream for each matter.

 

30 June, 2020

Rambarran & Green v Regina
Mr. Rohan Rambarran is a Guyanese citizen who had been charged with offences relating to the possession, importation, and trafficking of prohibited substances under the Drug Abuse (Prevention and Control) Act. On 4 June 2009, Mr. Rambarran was found guilty of possessing, importing, and trafficking two types of controlled drugs: cocaine and cannabis. In violating sections 6 (possession), 3 (importation), and 18 (trafficking) of the above Act, Mr. Rambarran was sentenced to 30 years in prison. He filed an appeal against his conviction on 30 December 2009 but was only heard by the Court of Appeal of Barbados in March 2016. The Court of Appeal delivered its decision on 28 August 2019 and rejected Mr. Rambarran’s appeal. The Court, however, also ruled that Mr. Rambarran’s sentence was excessive. Given the delay he had experienced in having his matter determined, his sentence was reduced to the time served and he was freed thereafter. Mr. Rambarran sought special leave to appeal to the CCJ, to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold his conviction.
Belize International Services Ltd v The Attorney General of Belize
Judgment will be delivered in this matter involving an alleged breach of contract by the Government of Belize. In June 1993, Belize International Services (BISL) entered into a Management Services Agreement with the Government of Belize. The Agreement was for a term of ten years with an option to BISL to renew the Agreement for a further ten years. In May 2003, the Agreement was renewed for a further ten years. In March 2005, in consideration of US$1.5 Million paid by BISL to the Government, the parties amended the Agreement and extended its term to June 2020. This latter extension was the subject of litigation whereby BISL sued the Government for breach of the Agreement seeking damages in the sum of US$45 million. The Government argued that the 2005 extension authorized BISL to continue to collect revenue and deposit it into bank accounts owned and operated by BISL which was in violation of constitutional and public finance law. The High Court Judge dismissed the claim and declared the 2005 extension unconstitutional, illegal and invalid. Prescribed costs were awarded to the Government. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
1 July, 2020
Mohammed Ifraan Ali et al v Eslyn David et al
The Applicants are appealing the decision of the Court of Appeal of Guyana delivered on Monday 22nd June 2020. On Thursday 18th June 2020, before the Chief Elections Officer of the Guyana Elections Commission was scheduled to submit his Report on the results of the General and Regional Elections held on 2nd March 2020. The First Respondent filed a Notice of Motion for several reliefs, among the reliefs sought was an interpretation of the words ‘more votes are cast’ in Article 177(2)(b) of the Constitution of Guyana. The Court of Appeal in its decision ordered that the words are to be interpreted as meaning ‘more valid votes are cast’. The Court also ordered the decision be stayed for three days. The Applicants, who were added as Respondents before the Court of Appeal, claim that the decision was wrong for many reasons, including that the Court of Appeal did not have the jurisdiction to hear and determine the Notice of Motion.

Disclaimer: The comments on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of DominicaNewsOnline.com/Duravision Inc. All comments are approved by DominicaNewsOnline.com before they are posted. We never censor based on political or ideological points of view, but we do try to maintain a sensible balance between free speech and responsible moderating.

We will delete comments that:

  • violate or infringe the rights of any person, are defamatory or harassing or include personal attacks
  • are abusive, profane or offensive
  • contain material which violates or encourages others to violate any applicable law
  • promote hatred of any kind
  • refer to people arrested or charged with a crime as though they had been found guilty
  • contain links to "chain letters", pornographic or obscene movies or graphic images
  • are excessively long and off-message

See our full comment/user policy/agreement.

2 Comments

  1. L C Matthew
    July 1, 2020

    Act. On 4 June 2009, Mr. Rambarran was found guilty of possessing, importing, and trafficking two types of controlled drugs: cocaine and cannabis. In violating sections 6 (possession), 3 (importation), and 18 (trafficking) of the above Act, Mr. Rambarran was sentenced to 30 years in prison. He filed an appeal against his conviction on 30 December 2009 but was only heard by the Court of Appeal of Barbados in March 2016. The Court of Appeal delivered its decision on 28 August 2019 and rejected Mr. Rambarran’s appeal. The Court, however, also ruled that Mr. Rambarran’s sentence was excessive. This is madness!!! Either gross incompetence or judicial malice. That cannot be justice and seems criminal on part of state. If a crime was committed by all means punish according to the law. My guess is because he was not from bdos the administration of justice was corrupted. This is the kind of crap our people accept.

  2. That's news!
    June 30, 2020

    Thank you DNO for another newsworthy report. These Court rulings should be made public, especially given the growing perception that the Courts can be manipulated by politicians and or those who have no interest in justice. The CCJ needs to ensure that its decisions are not only transparent and fair but are also seen to be so.

    When the Courts work as they are meant to for the good of all, the judges involved should be proud of their independence, for their contributions to just societies and to law and order. Their commitment to such an important profession should guide their every decision and no other court in the UK or elsewhere should find fault with their processes or decisions.

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

:) :-D :wink: :( 8-O :lol: :-| :cry: 8) :-? :-P :-x :?: :oops: :twisted: :mrgreen: more »

 characters available