Over a year after the Privy Council overturned the conviction that led to his expulsion, the Immigration Tribunal has reversed an earlier decision as
Randall Wins Status Appeal
Former local resident
Barry Randall recently had his appeal regarding the revocation
of his Caymanian Status allowed by the Immigration Tribunal.
Mr. Barry Randall
According to Mr. Randall, in August 1999 the Immigration Board revoked his Caymanian status in an exercise of its discretionary power under the Immigration Law following convictions against him in the Grand Court.
These convictions were subsequently overturned in their entirety by the Privy Council on the grounds of the misconduct of the prosecuting counsel, Mr. Richard Small from Jamaica, and of the trial judge, Mr. Justice Williams.
Mr. Small was brought in especially for the case, assisted by the now Acting Attorney General, Sam Bulgin.
Mr. Williams, according to the Privy Council Justices, wrongly failed to restrain the conduct of prosecuting counsel, and on occasion endorsed it.
The revocation of Mr. Randall's Caymanian Status by the Immigration Board resulted in his subsequent expulsion from the Cayman Islands as a 'prohibited immigrant' by further automatic operation of the Immigration Law.
Mr. Randall maintains that the action by the Immigration Board violated rights he was supposed to enjoy under the common law and also under treaties signed by the United Kingdom, notably the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant for the Protection of Civil and Political Rights.
In particular, he asserts that it constituted denial of access to his home, a violation of his right to family life, and discrimination and differential treatment on the basis of national or racial origin. It also represented extra-judicial punishment over and above that which could be imposed on a born-Caymanian.
Furthermore, this was also done before Mr. Randall had exhausted all of his appeals against conviction, so the Immigration Board could not have been sure at the time that the condition precedent for such discretionary revocation would not be overturned, as indeed it was.
Mr. Randall subsequently appealed the matter to the Governor-in-Council on that and other grounds, who apparently disregarded his contentions and deferred the matter until the outcome of the Privy Council appeal was known.
It has now taken Mr Randall more than a
year since the Privy Council ruling to get his appeal against
revocation of his Status dealt with. "I wrote to the Governor-in-Council
immediately after my successful appeal to the Privy Council,"
he told Cayman Net News, "and in the circumstances I would
have expected the matter to be dealt with expeditiously."
"However," he went on to say, "it took over a year
to be considered, and only then after a protracted campaign of
correspondence from myself and my attorney. The fact that Cayman
Net News mentioned the matter a few weeks ago may also have had
something to do with getting it finally resolved."
Asked if this was the end of the matter now, Mr Randall said, "Absolutely not. People occupying a public office of any kind need to be brought to the realisation that they cannot violate the rights of others with impunity. Just a few months ago the House of Lords quoted a statement by the Chief Justice of England in 1703: "If public officers will infringe men's rights, they ought to pay greater damages than other men to deter and hinder others from the like offences." This principle is as valid today as it was 300 years ago."