.png)
00:00
00:00
00:00
Attorneys Michael Hemmings and Bert Samuels
Attorney Michael Hemmings says the Supreme Court's ruling today that the detention of his client under the State of Emergency in St. James in 2018 was unlawful, has implications for the similar measure newly declared for St. Catherine.
The court on Friday morning ruled that the fundamental rights of St. James-based taxi operator Roshaine Clarke were violated and awarded him $17.8 million in damages.
Mr. Clarke, who was detained for months without charge, had challenged his detention on the basis that his human rights were violated.
With the court ruling that aspects of the regulations used in the 2018 state of emergency were null and void and a breach of fundamental rights and freedoms, Mr. Hemmings warned that if the current regulations are the same, then the state of emergency in St. Catherine could also be found unconstitutional.
Mr. Hemmings said his client is happy that "justice was done" after he spent about eight months in jail without charge.
Noting that they are satisfied, he said his client was more interested in proving that his constitutional rights were breached than in the size of the damages awarded.
The attorney said he expects Friday's ruling to guide how the government uses emergency powers in the future.
Coincidentally, Prime Minister Andrew Holness declared the State of Emergency for St. Catherine on Friday, just hours before the Supreme Court handed down its ruling.
More claims?
Attorney Bert Samuels has suggested that all other persons who were detained under previous states of emergency have grounds to bring a claim against the government.
Mr. Samuels argued that although the government amended the regulations in 2019, it did not change the offending parts on which Friday's ruling was made.
"It means that every single individual [who was] detained under the state of emergency, throughout all of the states of emergency, were unconstitutionally held," he said, joking that this could mean $17 million multiplied by thousands more.
Mr. Samuels added that it would be a waste of time for the government to appeal the ruling, as "it would only involve costs to Mr. Clarke's attorneys and more for the taxpayers of Jamaica who have already been burdened with $17 million-plus for one case".
comments powered by Disqus
All feeds
