Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

โ† Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

Shanique Myrie

BU has resisted writing – up to now โ€“ about the Shanique Myrie matter. Many disagreed with Shanique Myrieโ€™s legal advisors who made the decision to access the Caribbean Court Justice (CCJ) to rule on her (Myrie) right to move freely under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas. After yesterdayโ€™s ruling by the CCJ to give special leave to Myrie to argue her case before the court, she must feel vindicated. This is against the background that many of our local legal beavers had opined that the CCJ has no jurisdiction in the matter until the case came to them on appeal from the Barbados courts. Barbados because we are a member of Caricom is bound by the interpretation of theย  Caribbean Court of Justiceย  (CCJ) in all matters as it relates to the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas.

If we suck all of the emotion out of the matter, the Shanique Myrie versus the Government of Barbados case will be followed with great interest across the region. To what extent will this case threaten the discretion which traditionally has been exercised by officers at ports of entry in Caricom countries? If Myrie continues her winning ways, it potentially could provoke someย  countriesย  who are signatories, to question obligations under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramus as it relates to free movement of people.

To rub salt into the wound for some Myrie was awarded cost. To be fair it should be noted that at this stage the CCJ has given special leave to hear this matter i.e. the CCJ believes there is a case to be made. Myrieโ€™s legal team now has to argue the case.

The following is reproduced from the Barbados Advocate and gives a good summary of the special sitting of the CCJ on the matter.

Myrieโ€™s move

4/19/2012

CCJ rules Shanique Myrie has โ€˜arguableโ€™ case

By Allison Ramsay

Jamaican national Shanique Myrie has been granted special leave to commence proceedings against the Barbados Government by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

President of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Sir Charles Dennis Byron, made this announcement at yesterdayโ€™s special sitting of the CCJ in Barbados to a packed Supreme Court 1 at the Supreme Court Building, Bridgetown, St. Michael, nearly three hours after the start of proceedings at 10 a.m.

After deliberating with The Hon. Mr. Justice Winston Anderson, The Hon. Mr. Justice Rolston Nelson, The Hon. Mr. Justice Jacob Wit and The Hon. Mme Justice Desiree Bernard, Sir Charles in his response to the arguments made by Michelle Brown, attorney-at-law for the applicant and lead counsel of Barbadosโ€™ legal team, attorney-at-law Roger Forde, QC said that the Justicesโ€™ obligation was to determine if the case was arguable and the โ€œobligation to determine this issue was made simpler by the fact that the respondent has conceded that this is at least an arguable issue…โ€

Sir Charles granted Myrieโ€™s legal team 14 days to file the application and granted the applicant the cost of filing the application. He noted that had the concessions been made before the proceedings had commenced, the cost of having the hearing would have been reduced.

It is expected that July may be the earliest that this case is called before the CCJ.

Basing her arguments on the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas and the CARICOM conference decision of 2007, Brown argued for 90 minutes that Myrie was denied right of entry and that denial was โ€œunjustifiable, arbitrary and thus led to discrimination.โ€

Brown recounted Myrieโ€™s allegation that on March 14, 2011, her client, then 22 years old, was originally allowed entry for a month when her passport was stamped but then two hours later found herself upstairs in a bathroom where she was allegedly finger raped by a female Immigration officer, abused with foul language, threatened and then denied entry into Barbados.

She said that Myrie, who intended to visit a friend for two weeks, still is unsure to this day what she did, what was the aim of denial of entry and the two alleged cavity searches. Brown further stated that bringing the case to the CCJ was the direct and best route in terms of time and cost.

Arguable case

Forde made his submission in about 20 minutes. Stating that he was not going to waste the Courtโ€™s time, he conceded that there was an โ€œarguable case.โ€ He explained to the media following the announcement, โ€œI did not concede that she would succeed on the merits, but she has an arguable case. In that arguable case, she would state all of her facts, we would state ours and there is where it goes.โ€ โ€œArguable does not mean you are right. When two people are in court, they both have arguable cases โ€“ but only one person wins,โ€ Forde continued.

โ€œThe Court gave her permission to file that claim. The Court made no determination on it. Low threshold means that you have something that can be argued. It does not mean you would succeed in essence,โ€ he said.

When asked her reaction to the outcome, Brown told the media: โ€œWe are very happy with the ruling. We met all the obligations we needed to make to argue the case that will be presented in Trinidad or wherever the CCJ meets. We presented the facts to keep the Court foregrounded and to keep the facts alive.โ€ She said that Myrie feels โ€œvery happy now but is still anxious about what is going to happen in the future.โ€

A reserved Myrie arrived at the Supreme Court about 9:40 a.m. with her lawyers Brown and Marc Ramsay. Oโ€™Neil Francis appeared for the Attorney Generalโ€™s Office in Jamaica. Myrie, dressed in a black pants suit, listened intently in the front row of the public gallery to the entire proceedings. Her lawyers embraced each other after it was announced that the special leave was granted.

Barbadosโ€™s legal team was comprised of Patterson Cheltenham, QC; Dr. David Berry, Senior Lecturer International Law and Caribbean Integration Law and Deputy Dean (Academic) at the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus and Donna Brathwaite of the Attorney Generalโ€™s Office.

Sir Charles commended the Court for the high quality of professionalism exhibited.

The Court comprised of members of the legal fraternity, Government officials and others who were eager to witness the CCJ in operation in a space other than Trinidad and Tobago and to hear proceedings on this particular issue that has sparked controversy and debate on relations between Barbados and Jamaica.


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


  1. Wise move by Barbados. Had we tried it here and she had lost, the spectre of prejudice would have attached itself to us and our judiciary. Best to have it tried by the CCJ and that way no accusations of bias can attach to Barbados if she does not win. When the CCJ rules, then justice will not only have been done, but overwhelmingly be seen to have been done, whatever the outcome. The issue of costs at this stage ought not to be seen as negative at all. I believe it was right that Barbados should have sacrificed costs in order to avoid press speculation and rumour and to have it seen in open court that Barbados had also chosen to submit ITS case to the CCJ, for the avoidance of later accusations by the press of bias, intimidation and prejudice on the part of our courts.

    I was unable to watch the case on streaming video as the CCJ website was down and I did not have time to go to court and I probably would not have been able to squeeze in anyway. I have found the streaming video exceedingly helpful and do think that in all the cases on the list, this was likely the one that they should have assured themselves that it would be up and running for.

  2. old onion bags Avatar

    @ Amused
    Your above submission holds water on the presumption that WE WIN at the end of all this….. but what if WE LOSE …how it go look ??


  3. Many thought that this woman would have gone away quietly like countless others and accept the humiliations she had been put through. We have to change the way we do business. We have to hold our authorities to the highest of standards. Whether she wins or loses, Ms Myrie I hope would have raised the bar to how we approach our job of protecting our ports. We must perform our job in a humane fashion, we can refuse entry to anyone we deem unsuitable and not humiliate them verbally and physically. We are Barbadians and NOT Barbarians! Kudos to Ms Myrie


  4. I agree 100% with Amused’s perspective, whether the Barbados Government wins or loses. It’s about time that the sunshine of public scrutiny falls upon this notorious incident.


  5. At the end of the matter it may be the word of one employee against a visitor seeking entry.
    I have read denials even from government but no report of an official, unnamed of course, who interviewed her at the airport.

    To avoid bogus claims and to protect both officials and those seeking entry such interviews should be video recorded.


  6. Barbados did conced that that the case as presented on the “Free movement” was arguable but the question as to why to myrie was not allowed entry would be of most interest as this case proceeds.


  7. @Sid Boyce

    Yes but the issue has gone beyond the discussion about body searches etc. The rebut to that argument is if Myrie was indeed allowed into the country and subsequently had her entry revoked on suspicion of being involved in human trafficking then she should have been protected by the authorities and not treated as if he had the plaque.


  8. This is going to be an interesting case…and yes! island gal I with you on this one. Whether Myrie is right or wrong, however, this should be a lesson to all officers at ports of entry. (and elsewhere)..whether you have a gut feeling that someone is entering your country with criminal intent, until such is proven, people must be treated with respect whether man or woman or child. We are the Caribbean – a people who should be proud of how we are able to conduct business (all kinds of business) and having said that, let me go further and proclaim….and not have to have a large pig called Percy telling us what to do..and that by the way is another story…I cannot believe that little insulting campaign…the jingle is NISE and sweet but (to me anyhow) having a pig as a mascot shows that our powers that be think we are all pigs, and Percy the only nice one in the pen, put there to teach us how to smile and be NISE. This alone says something not so great about us. Sad enough. Hope the lawyers on Myrie’s side do not see this as an opportunity to use this in court “well your honour…a people who need a pig to tell dem to behave…..” I can just hear it. We really do need to wake up and smell the the sweet newly-ripened mango and not the dog-dumplings! What we really need to do Barbados is “bring back dem old time days, the old time ways….” ah know a few who gine jump down on me for saying this…but time to look at ourselves…2012 is the year of cleansing…or so it is claimed.


  9. another major concern would be thr right of Barbados to protect its broaders and if myries was purposely discrimnated and any actions by govern,ents violated her civil rights.There are a myriad of questions answers that needed to be pursued rigously in this case and i hope the government would pursue vigiouously in their presentations.


  10. What this case has done is to raised to the service AGAIN the latent insularity which exist in the region. Have a read of the regional newspapers.


  11. Recently, within the last month or so, I remember the Nation carrying a story of a Jamaican women married to a Bajan man, whose re-entry to B’dos, to be with her husband, was a terrible experience of much verbal and humiliating abuse by the authorities at the Airport, very similiar to the Myrie case, though no ‘finger’ rape was reported here.

    The detailed type of verbal and other very humiliating words used to this wife of a Bajan, before being allowed entry, was much akin to this Myrie case, in so far as this type language is alledged by those at the receiving end!

    Is there any connection in ‘Truth’ to such similiarties?

  12. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    After reading the Barbados Today, I have come to the conclusion that everybody in the region, and that includes the CCJ, thinks that Bardadians are idiots. I am convinced now more than ever that this should not be before the CCJ. If you went to court here with a severance payment claim, the court would run you back to the Severance Payments Tribunal. The CCJ is only hearing this case to give themselves something to do since they are underemployed. I learned from the Barbados Today that a visa was stamped in the lady’s passport and subsequently cancelled, I suppose by an immigration supervisor. That should be the substance of the case before the Barbados courts. The only one that can cancel a visa that was stamped in a passport before it expires is the Minister with responsibility for Immigration.

    Original jurisdiction my eye, this case should be before the Barbados courts.


  13. “I have come to the conclusion that everybody in the region, and that includes the CCJ, thinks that Bardadians are idiots.”

    Caswell not All Bajans but many who are put in positions of authority without the proper training. Actions speak louder than words my friend.


  14. Regional integration will be a political reality when people of the region can clearly see how it will work for them. If the people want it, the politicians will do it. However, I sense that most Barbadians are not aware of any major benefit that we get from CSME etc.
    The CCJ is a good step in the right direction but I hope that through the Myrie case, the message is not sent that individual territories should not have the right to refuse entry to some Caricom nationals.
    To be honest, we also catch quite a few drug pushers coming out of Jamaica almost weekly at Grantley Adams.
    Respect for rights – Yes
    Reduction in our Rigorous Border Protection – Hell No.


  15. Just spoke on the phone a minute or so ago, to a Jamaican friend, whose experience well over 20 years ago, in coming and going while living in B’dos, during those years, recalled that he was subjected on many occasions being ‘insulted’ by our authorities at the Airport, so it seems this kind of behaviour is nothing new towards Jamaicans, et al no doubt; just intensified more so, in recent times because of the ‘Drug’ oriented problem throughout our region.

    Nevertheless, it is not right to dehumanize others with this kind of abusive behaviour, regardless of if they are suspected Drug mules or otherwise!


  16. I, more than many others, would be the first to join any individual seeking redress for their rights in a court of law and therefore make the early disclaimer that I AM NOT ADDRESSING Ms. MYRIE’s right to due process in any court.

    I however would respectfully disagree with said court, the luminary giants and the pundits on this issue and the leave granted for this matter for the following reasons

    The one issue that is staring us all in the face is the validity of this 2003 Act and its subsequent Ratification and i ask all to look at the โ€œAgreement to Enable the Entry into Force of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (2006).

    This โ€œAgreement to Enable the Entry into Force of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas Establishing the Caribbean Community Including the CARICOM Single Market and Economyโ€ (paragraph nine (9) reproduced below) states:

    โ€œCONSCIOUS that Article 233 requires that any amendment to the Revised Treaty be subject to ratification by signatory States in accordance with their respective constitutional proceduresโ€

    This recital explicitly states that amendments of/to the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (RTOC) while provided for under Article 234 of the โ€œRevised Treatyโ€, are subject to (fourteen) โ€œratificationsโ€, to be effected in accordance with the โ€œrespective constitutional proceduresโ€ of 14 original signatory Member States.

    Did the Court, the legal luminaries and of course the pundits who have and will weigh in on this hear of any such Constitutional Procedures?

    Surely, with a grapevine as sophisticated as that we have in Barbados, one where you cant carry more than US$10K into the US, without declaring it, and have the fallout of such “wisdom” well publicized for all in BIM!

    Surely in a place where all immediately are cognisant/informed of the reach of the long arm of ICE, how then can “CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURES” be effected in 14 member states and not a soul, (other that the CCJ Court, the legal Luminaries (of whom Sir ** is one) the pundits, the sycophants) especially 300K Bajans and residents not know?

    Examine Paragraph 13 of the Agreement to Enable the Entry into Force of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (paragraph reproduced below) which requires that these troublesome โ€œInstruments of Ratificationโ€ be deposited at CARICOMโ€™s Repository.

    Paragraph 13 (reproduced here) reads โ€“ โ€œDetermined to secure the entry into force of the Revised Treaty by 1 January 2006 ; Hereby agree as follows : Article 234 of the Revised Treaty shall be amended to read as follows โ€“ โ€œThis Treaty shall enter into force on 1 January 2006 IF INSTRUMENTS OF RATIFICATION have been previously deposited by any twelve of the States mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article 3 and if not, then on such later date on which the twelfth such instrument has been deposited.โ€

    Twelve States signing this amendment MUST abrogate the 2001 RTOCโ€˜s signatory requirement in Article 234 titled โ€œEntry into Forceโ€ that states that all (fourteen) original Member States are required to sign to amend the RTOC.

    It would seem honourable court, luminary counsel, pundits et al., that having โ€œamendedโ€ the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas in 2006, that any prior Act, Laws, Bills or Special Instruments, like those depended on in yesterday’s ruling (the 2003’s Act and 2005’s ratification) would in themselves, WITHOUT THE REQUISITE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURES (and ensuing Instruments of Ratification) NOT BE APPLICABLE & COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RELIED ON, since they refer to a period, prior to 2006 and to an amended Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas


  17. “…accusations by the press of bias, intimidation and prejudice on the part of our courts …” Amused
    “everybody thinks that Bardadians (who are put in positions of authority without the proper training) are idiots” Caswell and Islandchick

    This all hints at the lack of confidence in the courts, immigration officials, police … and you know what … I AGREE.

    The only difficulty that I have is that once again the likes of Cheltenham will be paid handsomely out of the tax payers purse for the blatant shortcomings of this society, short comings that were NOT in his brother’s interest to fix, when he had the chance


  18. David I am feeling … Somet’ing wrong


  19. @BAFBFP

    Explain yourself!


  20. David

    As per David Weekes above. I asked him to submit that opinion to see how Ross Amused or any of the Observing people respond …! Somet’ing ain’ right


  21. some are assuming that myrie allegations of mistreatment are true without evidence from the other side.it is interesting that the case was transformed from the original allegations into one which is going to challenge the immigration law of entry and a persons civil rights.the lawyers do have their work cut out for them.

  22. old onion bags Avatar

    Amm who paying for all these cost ? The fraternity sure knows how to look after each other


  23. Bags my point exactly. Look at the people representing Barbados. My God …! We got dah kinda money to spend? I say cut your losses. Look admit guilt fix the process of inspection at the ports (use medics to conduct searches and deal with the visa issue as per Caswell) so that there can be NO allegations of violations, fix the f#ckin’ treaty including the issues outlined by David Weekes so that citizens will not be disadvantaged by it while borders can remain protected and tell the big shot lawyers to fly in hell …! What a ridiculous waste of money.

    KEEP LAWYERS OUT OF PARLIAMENT …!


  24. Sorry Ross, that includes you …

  25. old onion bags Avatar

    BAFBFP
    When all this is finish..tax payers go have to fork out about $60 Mil in legal fees and pay Myrie some thing also.People in an Amused places see CCJ as a ..”.Wise move by Barbados.” for reasons..don’t get tie up…this case go run for 2 years at least ….its the TOP lawyers who stand to benefit…..Barbados, see who doing the fingering now .


  26. @ BAF

    You mean keep ME out of Parliament? Oh dear BAF – perish it, I wouldn’t want to go there – but I’ll stand behind you – err.. BUT did I read above that you asked DW to put his question to me and others? I really don’t want to get involved. For one thing, I’m not an expert on this. For another, I don’t want to fuel DW’s natural concerns and interests in a public forum

  27. old onion bags Avatar

    Wait that means Ross not cashing on this windfall….hmmm wonder who in here is.?…let’s see a show of hands


  28. @ David Weekes

    David – see my response to BAF above. As you realise, BAF asked me a question relating to an inscrutable comment. I did my best to address it – since it was BAF that asked me. It was not in the nature of a ‘legal opinion’. I am sorry no-one took up my offer to stand with you at this time and if I can be of assistance to you outside of BU then I would be happy to think about it. But note: whatever practice I ever had has ended.


  29. I was reading some other forums. The insular, hateful comments coming from BOTH countries on this matter are sickening.


  30. @ BAF

    In fact, I’ll not only stand behind you – err- I’ll wear the T Shirt.

  31. Observing (and stupsing more) Avatar
    Observing (and stupsing more)

    What I found interesting was the court’s take that they would have ruled earlier had the Barbadian contingent acknowledged the presence of a case. I hope to God that the government has an air tight case with tangible evidence to support their denial of mistreatment. Anything less will once again make us look “bad” and as David said, they are very few in the region who are backing us on this one.


  32. @ Nia

    There is a perception that Barbadians are unduly dismissive of Jamaicans – to be terribly ‘civilised’. The anecdotal evidence above about treatment of Jamaicans at GA I’m sure is accurate. A friend who was then a student told me that she’d been told, when asked how long she’d be here and who responded that she’d come to study, ‘well hurry up and finish and then get out”. Disgraceful. It wasn’t helped when ‘Herod-Beckles’ made his fatuous remarks about Gayle in the supercillious way he did and then uttered what he called an ‘apology’ which wasn’t an apology at all. Well it was ‘lawyer’s apology’..


  33. Observing and chupsing; Thereby the investiture charade. unnecessary, expensive and likely ineffective preemptive damage control.


  34. @ David

    See the cricket discussion. What price caribbean integration?


  35. Further to my previous comment, I think we have to consider a few aspects:

    1. Was Immigration within its rights to conduct a body search if it felt that it was necessary for the protection of our laws and people. I say yes. It was within its rights. In these days of terrorist organizations and drug cartels, that is beyond any reasonable dispute. I make the point that some years ago, in conducting a body search on a Canadian visitor, it was found that the visitor had secreted a quantity of drugs ……UNDER HIS FORESKIN! As a non-Jewish man, may I assure you that secreting illegal substances under oneโ€™s foreskin is FAR more difficult and uncomfortable (and I am led to this conclusion by the opinions of She Who Must Be Obeyed) than in the corresponding orifice available to Ms Myrie.
    2. Was the body search conducted in such a manner that Ms Myrie was assaulted? Or was it properly conducted?
    3. We also have to consider whether or not Ms Myrie has complained as a means of shaking down the Barbados government for a large settlement, or with just cause.
    4. In this respect, we must look at the espousal of Ms Myrieโ€™s case, absent any investigation by the government of Barbados, by the government of Jamaica. If the roles were reversed, I would expect the responsible government of Barbados to seek more information from the government of Jamaica WITHOUT COMMENTING, until such time as the government of Jamaica had completed its investigations. The government of Jamaica, however, did not seem to feel that it was under any such internationally-accepted imperative and custom. Shame on them!

    The problem, however, of the general surliness and rudeness of customs and immigration officials identified by Islandgal and Rosemary is relevant and well made. That has GOT to stop. Just who in hell do these people in civil service jobs think they are? The arrogance and general bloody-minded rudeness has got to be addressed and stopped.

    However, we have seen no grounds to suggest that Ms Myrie is right, or that the customs and immigration officials were wrong. So we cannot prejudge the case. That is a matter now for the CCJ to decide upon the evidence.

    I therefore agree with the position of Mr Forde Q.C. and his team and with the Barbados Government. And I too would have thought it prudent to incur the costs involved so that this position was aired in open court and not simply diplomatically where it was subject to interpretation and misinterpretation at the whim of a government that appears to have no idea of or respect for diplomatic conventions and customs.

    Mr Weekes, I certainly most sincerely feel for you in your own predicament. However, sir, as I have pointed out in another blog on BU (to ROK, whom I greatly admire) that there is a CCJ precedent that ought to be seen as obviating the necessity of local legislation in order to meet the terms of the Treaty. Now, I am aware that this is not what you want to hear, but I think you may find that that is the case. Therefore, I suggest to you that your argument in this case is not well founded.

    Finally, I think it was ac who suggested that these body searches ought to be conducted on video. I agree. However, this would require very strict regulations as to security of the videos and the way in which the searches are conducted. I do not think that such exist at the moment and the legal and medical framework ought now to be put in place as a matter of urgency, to implement your excellent view which would protect both the person being searched and those doing the searching.


  36. Costs were awarded against us because essentially we had wasted the Court’s time – because in a sense we demonstrated contempt. It was nothing new – we failed to appear for the video link for the case management conference too without any rational explanation.

    The issue, as I understand it, was whether the Court had jurisdiction. That depended upon whether Myrie had ‘an arguable case’. Eventually Forde conceded that she did – though he used rather silly, mincing language about it. One of the judges tried to insinuate that maybe it wasn’t all that clear cut. Forde didn’t capitalise on that. Anderson then decapitated him. Remarks like “I’m too old to waste the Court’s time” (from Forde) was hardly likely to make the law journals.

    It was fascinating. Myrie came with a middle order lawyer and a lad – he was Called in October. Good for him for being there. They were thoroughly prepared – indeed, as they had to be for the burden was on them. We turned up with the big shots – and a ‘scholar’. Gee. And we made a mess of it and were felled by a stone from a sling,


  37. @robert

    Never one to miss an opening are you willing to extend your ‘view’ to the current state of the judiciary? Or do you regard the request as perverse?…lol.


  38. @ David…..I may be ‘old’ but my memory still serves – sometimes – and the issue is important, integration – see my next comment.


  39. There’s one thing we’re missing in all this and Amused’s comments about the merits (which are arguably unnecessarily partisan and premature) rather highlights it. We are seeing all this as a battle between us and Jamaica (through Myrie). Yet the case is important because it requires us to identify acceptable international standards, minimum international standards, of treatment. We speak of the need to identify and explore a discrete Caribbean Jurisprudence and that is precisely what is involved here. It’s not about ‘us’ and ‘them’ – it’s actually about what’s good and right for the region of which we are all a part. To see it as less than that only diminishes us.


  40. @robert

    Agree 100%.


  41. Ross

    I did ask him to submit anon, but like most people from Crumpton high … “own way” yah know how.

    As per those who think that placing trivialities in open court so as not to confuse issues before the public, you prove that you really have little respect for the spending of governments funds


  42. very statemanlike statement islandgal. sometimes, it’s not what we do but how we do it.


  43. @ BAF

    Oh that’s OK…course. On a waste of money…we might just as well have sent two juniors – they could have said ‘OK’ too.


  44. i recall the abuse hurled by the majority of commentators on this forum against the accusations by Ms Myrie and those who offered alternative opinions notwithstanding none of us commentators would have been seized of the facts under the then circumstances. The case is far from over but what should be of interest to those commentators like AC and her speculation about drug peddling is that Ms Myrie was actually granted a month’s stay. I am wondering what could have happened between the time in whch she was granted entry and subsequently to cause the authorities change their decision. i await the facts.


  45. Eff I was a reporter my headline story would read like this…….Big Pants Attorney takes fall for his country.s government….. Read all about the new China blessed immigration pannnache.. Barbados loss direction,

    SOSSSSSS SOSSS
    . My Lord what a day yesterday was.


  46. Scruffy…pray tell us what are you talking about? Can you please enlighten us?


  47. “The Case appears to be that: “Miss Myrie was denied right of entry – as a CARICOM citizen – and that denial was unjustifiable, arbitrary and thus led to discrimination”.

    “It if further alleged that Myrie was originally allowed entry for a month when her passport was stamped but then two hours later found herself upstairs”.

    There appears to be no doubt that Miss Myrie was denied entry to Barbados.
    Were there justifiable reasons for such action?
    The Immigration Authorities would have to prove they were.
    Did Miss Myrie have enough finance to sustain her during her stay in Barbados?

    Did her sponsor/s – if required- have the means to support Miss Myrie and did he/she show a willingness to do so when requested?

    Were the sponsor/s deemed suitable persons by the Immigration Authorities, if not, why?

    The Immigration Authorities would have to show “reasonable grounds” for Miss Myrie’s refusal of entry.

    The question of the alleged search up to this point has not arisen. It is important that you bear this in mind, because the case can be won or lost without proof of any “search”.

    The question to be asked is what transpired in the interval between Miss Myrie’s passport being stamped and given permission to stay and then refused entry.
    That her passport was stamped in the first instance with permission to stay could indicate no malice or discrimination was shown because she was Jamaican.

    What inquiries did the Immigration Authorities make? did they fail to confirm what they were told?

    Were their subsequent actions “reasonable” taking account of all the information they had to hand.

    Some might say their actions were not arbitary, in that they sought further information and clarification before making a “structured” reasonable decision on the evidence before them.


  48. Ross

    In concurrence I believe that it is fair to say that as a tax payer I am now NOT only concerned with the waste of money, but the quality of representation and advice that Barbados is receiving with this public servant, Sen lecturer consultant and QC advocate. I say fire their collective asses … publicly!


  49. @ Yardbroom…..nice


  50. Yardbroom

    How you clould prove that there was a search …? You feel that the judge should smell the immigration woman index finger ?

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading