S. Myrice Case

Clarke and was denied entry. She was detained and deported to Jamaica the following day. The Barbados authorities claimed Miss Merle was being denied entry due to Improper representation, on the basis that they were unable to verify that the information provided by Shanghai was valid, as a result of contradicting statement made by her named host Miss Clarke.

The facts provided by the state of Barbados were disputed by Shanghai Marie. She allegedly advised the authorities that she spoke only the truth.

We Will Write a Custom Case Study Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

She further gave a detailed description of the events which took place which surrounded Imagery supporting to ere claims; to a breach of her human rights, which included body cavity search and the unsanitary state of the cell in which she was detained overnight. She claimed discriminated, based on her nationality for being treated In a less favorable manner, which led to further embarrassment, loss and trauma. Procedural History: The Jamaican Supreme Court upheld the shale Marie case where Shanghai the claimant appealed to the Caribbean court of Justice.

As a national of Jamaica Shanghai Marie was said to be a “person of contracting Party” and as a result was granted “special leave” whereby she could bring the claim herself before the Caribbean Court of Justice, being that she had a locus stands and had satisfied the requirements under the ROTC Art 2221. The burden of proof rests with Ms Merle In this case, based on the claims made concerning charges of significant harshness and allegations of international liability of the State of Barbados.

The timeline of events leading to the Judgment are as followed: Initial application filed at the Court on the 17th day of May 2012, the Defense filed on the 1 lath day of July 2012, the Judgment of the Court of 26th October 2012 allowing the State of Jamaica to intervene In the recordings and inviting Member States to make submissions on the issues in FIFO November 2012, the case management conference held on the 12th day of December 2012, the written submissions filed on behalf of the Defendant on the 9th day of January 2013, the written submissions filed on behalf of the Intervener on the 29th day of January 2013, the pre-hearing reviews held on the 7th day of February 2013 and the 22nd day of February 2013, the case management conference held in Jamaica on the 4th day of March 2013, the public hearings held on the 4th, 5th, 6th days of March 2013 in Jamaica, the case management conference held on the 26th ay of March 2013, the visit to the Grantees Adams International Airport, Barbados by the President and Judges of the Court on the 16th day of March 2013, the public hearings held on the 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st days of March 2013 in Barbados, the supplementary written submissions filed on behalf of the Claimant and of the Defendant both filed on the 4th day of April 2013, and the public hearings held on the 8th and 9th days of April 2013 at the Seat of the Court. 2 Issue(s): This case was brought before the court to determine whether Shanghai Marie was of “undesirable” Nature or of ill repute to which she was unlawfully detained and ported.

Based on the proceedings of the Revised Treaty of Charisma’s, one must consider whether or not proper qualifications were examined by the airport authorities in determining that Miss Marie was “undesirable” And what then would be the liability of the state of Barbados to this breach.

This furthermore leads us to consider the application of the 2007 conference and whether or not the Claimant would be liable for damages. We also want to consider if there was a breach of human rights, where the International human rights act would be applicable. Would Domestic Laws superimpose community law? And last but not least was there evidence of discrimination towards the claimant based on her nationality.

Holding(s): The ICC held that squashes Marie was liable for damages, where the case stands mostly if not completely of the decisions of the treaty of Chargers and upholding the decisions in the 2007 Conference Decision. It was therefore declared that the State of Barbados infringed the right of the Claimant of Jamaican Shanghai Marie to enter Barbados pursuant to “Article 45” of the ROTC.

3 The liability of the State of Barbados in regards to this breach, given its seriousness and the causal link between t and the damages Ms Marie incurred, has been established. The Decision by the ICC stipulates that the Court is entitled to and does award her both her pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as the combined amount is substantial.

The Court awards these sums in the currency of the State with the liability to pay, I. E. , the State of Barbados.

Applicable Rule of Law: The pertinent areas of law which applied to this case and its decisions were: The Revised Treaty of Charisma’s, where Articles 7, 8, 9, 12, 27, 28, 29, 30, 45, 46, 225, 226 and 240 are the foundation on which this case rests. The 2007 Conference Decision (“Community law”). “The Conference agreed that all CAROM nationals should be entitled to an automatic stay of six months upon arrival in order to This is subjected to the rights of Member States to refuse “undesirable persons” entry and to prevent persons from becoming a charge on public funds. 4 There was also much reference to the Domestic laws which are not consistent with Community law. In this case consideration was given to immigration systems within the national laws of Barbados and in particular, relevant provisions of the Immigration Act and the Administrative Justice Act. Reasoning At the onset of this case the court would have to consider how the Airport authorities established that an individual was being untruthful, therefore the burden of proves now rest on the state of Barbados.

The Court also considered as to whether or not this would classify as being undesirable. In this case, this was the grounds on which Barbados placed their reason for detaining and deporting Shanghai Marie.

According to the leading rule of law, The ROTC gives rights to a Member State to refuse undesirable persons and to prevent persons from becoming a charge on public ands. The court found that Barbados did not prove whether or not Miss Clarke, Mr..

Forded or Miss Rowe were of ill repute and was not able to prove that Shanghai Marie is was undesirable. To prove that one is undesirable according to the law, one would fall under any category that is considered deviant or of ill-repute such as drugs trafficking, scamming, prostitution etc. Factually their argument was that shanghai Marie was untruthful when interviewed by customs and immigration authorities.

It is in fact according the Barbados Immigration Act,5 to be truthful before the immigrations officer, however in this case it was the word of shanghai against a possibly scared citizen who’s only aim was to protect and alienate herself from the situation, which is possible in this case where factually miss Clarke scarcely knew Miss Marie The state of Barbados therefore failed to provide evidence that the Shanghai or her host where of ill repute. It was taken into consideration whether or not Shanghai was discriminated against; the Administrative Justice ACTA provides that no reasons need be given for a decision of an official under the Immigration Act.


Marie and the Intervener submit that these laws are discriminatory in their application to Community nationals and Ms Marie seeks relief on this basis in the form of a declaration that they (a) violate, or are inconsistent with, her rights under Article 7, 8 or 9 ROTC, (b) frustrate and prejudice the object and purpose of the ROTC and (c) result in inhumane treatment of Community. However despite the unfavorable treatment undergone by Miss Marie based on the fact that only a small percentage of Jamaican are detained by the state, discrimination was not said to be a deciding factor. It was said that there were evidence of contradicting laws, where community law, the ROTC seemingly overlays the immigrations acts, international human rights, and the 2007 conference.

It was said that Community law overlays domestic laws- in the case where there was a violation of community law, it was not the fact that it contradicts it but the way in which it was applied- The Governing body should ensure they are consistent with international treaties. Considering all the evidence and areas of law the C was able to settle all claims, and address the legal matters which arose. This case can be said to be an exemplary precedent for future reference, in the light of our right of free movement in the CAROM community and has definitely opened the eyes of our community state members as a reminder of the ROTC and the decision that we would be one Caribbean like that of the EX.

for better social and economical development.

It can therefore be said that Shanghai Marie was to some extent relived for the embarrassment and painful ordeal in which she was undergone. The ICC ruled that the state of Barbados is to compensate the Claimant the amount of Beds$2240. O (being the equivalent of JAG $1 12,000. 00) for the pecuniary damages and the sum of Beds$75,OHO.

O for non- pecuniary damages. They also ordered the State of Barbados to pay the costs of the Claimant to be taxed if not agreed. The court made no order as to costs of the Intervener or the Community and Refuses all other declarations and orders claimed in the Originating Application and in the Statement filed by the State of Jamaica in its capacity as Intervener.

Therefore the court did not award her any damages for the alleged body cavity search, even though it admitted that the detention room at the airport was unsanitary. The regional tribunal also rejected the claim that she was discriminated against because of her nationality.

On the other hand the ICC laid down guidelines by which all CAROM states had to follow in their treatment of Caribbean nationals entering each other’s member states. The main requirement was that CAROM nationals are entitled to hassle free entry and any country refusing entry must allow the person to contact a lawyer a family member or some other representative and they must be provided with reasons for the refusal.