![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dominicanewsonline.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/caribbeancourtofjustice_1f9b8837f37014926ad299ed218c000a-642x362.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
On February 21, 2025, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) dismissed an appeal filed by the Commonwealth of Dominica in case DMCV2024\/001, involving Jhawnie Gage, Arah Paule Cecil Davis, and Edgar Augustus Peltier against the Attorney General of Dominica. The Court\u2019s detailed reasons for its decision were issued on June 9, 2025.<\/p>\n
The CCJ issued a press release outlining the case which originated from a December 2014 decision by the High Court, that ordered the freezing of certain assets belonging to the appellants under the Proceeds of Crime Act. The appellants challenged this freezing order, seeking its removal, but their application was denied by the High Court. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal, prompting the appellants to escalate the matter to the CCJ.<\/p>\n
The core legal question before the CCJ was whether the failure of the Attorney General to register the freezing order \u2018as a charge\u2019 on a registered property\u2014specifically, Shawford Estate\u2014should lead to the order\u2019s discharge concerning that property. The Court also considered issues related to delays in registration and the implications of the 2022 Amendment Act to the Proceeds of Crime Act.<\/p>\n
In her written judgment, Honourable Justice Rajnauth-Lee clarified that registering a \u2018charge\u2019 serves to alert innocent third parties who may wish to buy or deal with the property. Such registration indicates that the Attorney General has a legal interest in the property under the Proceeds of Crime Act, granting it priority over subsequent dealings. Therefore, the absence of registration \u2018as a charge\u2019 did not automatically nullify the freezing order. The Court emphasized that the order remained binding until formally discharged by a court.<\/p>\n
While the CCJ acknowledged that there was a significant delay in registering the freezing order\u2014an action taken by the Attorney General\u2014the Court found that this delay did not warrant the order\u2019s discharge. The Court underlined the importance of laws designed to prevent criminals from benefiting from illegal activities.<\/p>\n
The Court also examined the effect of the 2022 Amendment to the Proceeds of Crime Act. This legislative change replaced the previous provision that rendered a freezing order \u2018of no effect\u2019 if not registered as a charge. The new law allows the Registrar of Titles to issue a caveat upon application by the Attorney General. The CCJ determined that this amendment did not alter the outcome of the case, as the original freezing order was never rendered invalid; it simply remained in effect until properly discharged.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, the CCJ dismissed the appeal and upheld the freezing order, with the exception of certain disclosure obligations that had already been fulfilled and were upheld by the Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n
The case was decided by the CCJ President, Honourable Mr. Justice Saunders, alongside Justices Anderson, Rajnauth-Lee, Barrow, and Ononaiwu. The appellants were represented by Senior Counsel Douglas L Mendes SC and Mrs. Gina Dyer Munro, while the respondent was represented by Senior Counsel Rishi P A Dass SC, Ms. Sasha Bridgemohansingh, and Mrs. Tameka Burton.<\/p>\n