"impressive silks and juniors are praised for their strength in depth"
A number of our barristers specialise in Administrative and Public Law. Specific areas of expertise in administrative and public law include; Constitutional Law, Data Protection and Freedom of Information, EU Public Law, Human Rights, Judicial Review, Media and Broadcasting, Medical and Pharmaceutical Regulation, Public Inquiries, Public International Law, Public Procurement and State Aid, Regulatory and Disciplinary Law and Transport Law. You can see more details of the barristers' practices by clicking on the links on the right hand side of this page.
Ruth Jordan is frequently instructed to advise and act in judicial review cases domestically and in The Bahamas. She was called to the Bar of The Bahamas in 2021 to act for the applicant in a judicial review challenge to an exploratory offshore oil drilling project in Waterkeeper Bahamas v Minister for the Environment, Bahamas Petroleum Co Plc and others. She was instructed in a long-running high-profile series of judicial review and constitutional proceedings in The Bahamas Coalition to Protect Clifton Bay (aka Save The Bays) v The Prime Minister of The Bahamas and others. She appears regularly in the Privy Council on public law appeals (for example, in Bimini Blue Coalition v Prime Minister of The Bahamas and others [2014] UKPC 23 and R v Save Guana Cay Reef Association [2009] UKPC 44). In November 2022, Ruth Jordan and Thomas Elias appeared in an appeal to the Privy Council in relation to security for costs in public interest litigation RDA v The Prime Minister of The Bahamas & others.
Wilson Leung has acted on a number of judicial review matters in Hong Kong. He acted as sole advocate (with the other side represented by Senior Counsel) in judicial review against Hong Kong government’s refusal to grant compensation for wrongful conviction (A v Secretary for Justice [2020] 2 HKLRD 86 – A); he was instructed on behalf of the Hong Kong Society of Notaries and successfully defended a member’s judicial review against imposition of late payment fees (Li Chiu Wah Joseph v Hong Kong Society of Notaries [2020] HKCFI 2271 and [2020] HKCFI 1789); and he acted for 31 major banks and law firms to intervene at Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in judicial review against dependant visa policy for same-sex couples (QT v Director of Immigration (Leave to Intervene) (2018) 21 HKCFAR 150).
Jean-Charles v The Attorney General of The Bahamas and ors [2022] UKPC 51:
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has handed down its advice in Jean-Charles v The Attorney General of The Bahamas and ors [2022] UKPC 51. The decision establishes that a constitutional challenge may be made in an action for habeas corpus and that separate legal proceedings are not required.
Mr Jean Charles was arrested and detained by officers of the Bahamas Immigration Department and then expelled to Haiti without being charged with any offence or taken before any court, and without any detention or deportation order having been made in respect of him under the provisions of the Bahamas Immigration Act.
An application for a writ of habeas corpus was made on his behalf. An application for constitutional relief was then made in the alternative. The judge dismissed the writ of habeas corpus because Mr Jean Charles had already been expelled to Haiti but granted constitutional relief, requiring the state parties to facilitate his return to The Bahamas.
The judge’s decision was set aside on appeal. The Court of Appeal held that an application for a writ of habeas corpus should always remain a discrete action and that the judge ought to have required the applicant to institute new proceedings if he wished to seek constitutional relief. It also held that there was uncertainty over whether Mr Jean Charles was in fact the person expelled to Haiti and that the judge ought to have adjourned to permit the state parties to adduce evidence on various issues of fact.
The Board held that it was erroneous to require an applicant in an action for habeas corpus to bring a separate action to seek constitutional relief, or to hold that evidence produced in the habeas corpus proceedings was not available for the purposes of the constitutional motion. It reiterated that the rights enshrined in the Constitution of The Bahamas should be given a liberal interpretation in order to give individuals the full measure of the rights and freedoms which it confers, and that a person who alleges that his or her fundamental rights are threatened or have been contravened should have unhindered access to the court.
The Board remitted the matter for retrial following further evidence whilst questioning whether there would turn out to be much substance in several of the alleged factual disputes, including in particular the identity of the appellant and whether it was he whom the authorities removed to Haiti.
Mr Jean Charles was represented by Adrian de Froment, led by Edward Fitzgerald KC (Doughty Street) and Frederick Smith KC and R. Dawson Malone of Callenders & Co and Simons Muirhead Burton LLP.
To view the judgment of the JCPC please click here.
Welcome to SerleShare
SerleShare is an up-to-date digital marketing initiative that came to life in July 2020 when our Business Development and... Read More
JCPC hands down judgment in Jean-Charles v The Attorney General of The Bahamas and ors [2022] UKPC 51
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has handed down its advice in Jean-Charles v The Attorney General of The... Read More
Welcome to SerleShare
SerleShare is an up-to-date digital marketing initiative that came to life in July 2020 when our Business Development and... Read More
JCPC hands down judgment in Jean-Charles v The Attorney General of The Bahamas and ors [2022] UKPC 51
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has handed down its advice in Jean-Charles v The Attorney General of The... Read More
