Cayman Islands’ Grand Court rules prisoners’ removal to the UK does not violate the Bill of Rights

12/12/24

At the conclusion of long-running judicial review litigation that has already seen one ruling by the Privy Council, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has found that the decision of the Governor (taken in conjunction with the UK’s Foreign Secretary and Lord Chancellor) in June 2017 removing two prisoners to serve their sentences in the United Kingdom under the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act 1884 (“the 1884 Act”) was lawful. 

In 2016 the Plaintiffs, two Caymanian nationals, Justin Ramoon and Osbourne Douglas, were convicted of a 2015 murder described by the trial judge as “a very public execution of the most evil nature” and sentenced to life imprisonment with minimum sentences of 35 and 34 years.  They were both committed to serve their sentences at HMP Northward, the only male prison in the Cayman Islands.  In June 2017, amid security concerns raised by the police and prison service if the Plaintiffs remained at HMP Northward, the UK Foreign Secretary and Lord Chancellor made orders for the prisoners’ committal to serve their sentences in the UK under the 1884 Act.  The Governor gave her “concurrence” to the committal, in accordance with the 1884 Act, and the Plaintiffs were immediately removed to prisons in the UK, where they continue to serve their sentences.   The Plaintiffs challenged their removal by judicial review proceedings as a breach of their rights under the Cayman Islands Bill of Rights, invoking sections 6 (prisoners’ right to be treated with dignity), 7 (right to a fair trial), 9 (right to respect for private and family life) and 17 (children’s rights).   Pre-trial issues resulting in separate judgments included the Plaintiffs’ locus standi to bring the claims against the Governor in Cayman rather than against the Foreign Secretary in the UK  (they did), whether sensitive intelligence upon which the decisions were based was subject to public interest immunity so should not be disclosed (“PII”) (it was), the appointment of a special advocate in the PII proceedings (for the first time in Cayman) and whether the Court could consider the PII material at the substantive claim for judicial review by way of a “closed material procedure” (“CMP”).  The Grand Court concluded a CMP could not be held in the absence of an explicit statutory procedure.  The Court of Appeal held that a CMP was available but was overturned on appeal to the Privy Council, who remitted the matter back to the Grand Court for the substantive hearing.  The Privy Council’s judgment of 3 March 2023 is here.

The Grand Court (McDonald-Bishop J (Ag.) heard the substantive applications over 4 days in November 2023, with judgment handed down on 27 November 2024.  By the time of the Grand Court hearing the only issues that remained were whether the decision to transfer the Plaintiffs had been a disproportionate or unfair interference with their right to private and family life.  These issues nevertheless required consideration of several important sub-issues including: the standard of proportionality review; the time at which proportionality was to be considered (date of decision or date of hearing); the lack of availability of a high security prison in Cayman Islands and its relevance to the Plaintiffs’ human rights claims; the relevance of the impact of the removal on the Plaintiffs’ children; and the Court’s approach to fact-finding in a case where information relevant to the original decision has been withheld on PII grounds.

The Court resolved all the sub-issues in the Governor’s favour and dismissed the claims.  The judgment is here.