Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
Lawyers representing a group of 54 Venezuelan migrants and the State engaed in tense submissions yesterday over a stay of a judge’s decision to order their conditional release pending the outcome of their lawsuit over their proposed deportation.
Appellate Judge Prakash Moosai presided over the hearing on the stay and a ruling on the matter is expected to be handed down today.
Guardian Media understands that hours after High Court Judge Ricky Rahim granted the interim relief sought by the group on Tuesday afternoon, State attorneys filed an urgent appeal and an application for a stay of Justice Rahim’s orders so they would not take effect pending the outcome of an appeal over them (the orders).
Sources said that the legal challenge came after immigration officials placed almost half of the group on supervision orders and released them in accordance with Justice Rahim’s decision.
The remaining members of the group remained in detention yesterday.
In the court filings related to the appeal, obtained by Guardian Media, attorneys for the State raised eight grounds under which they suggested Justice Rahim made errors in determining the group’s application for interim relief.
They claimed that having found the deportation orders against the group issued by National Security Minister Fitzgerald Hinds were valid, Justice Rahim should not have stopped the execution of the deportation orders pending the eventual outcome of their substantive case.
They also contended that Justice Rahim made incorrect findings concerning the ability of the Chief Immigration Officer to release detainees on supervision orders after they were issued deportation orders.
“The findings and orders of the Learned Judge were so unreasonable and/or perverse and/or was so fundamentally wrong and/or contrary to law that no court acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law and acting in a fair, rational, and proportionate manner could have made such findings and/or orders,” they said.
Through the appeal, the State is asking the Court of Appeal to reverse the interim relief as well as Justice Rahim’s decision to allow them to pursue one aspect of their substantive case.
The migrants were among a large group of fellow nationals who were detained for immigration offences at a nightclub in St James on July 8.
How the case unfolded
Two weeks ago, High Court Judge Avason Quinlan-Williams upheld a claim from six of the detainees in which they contended that they were unlawfully held at the location, which was officially designated as a quarantine facility for the Covid-19 pandemic but not as an immigration detention station.
Two days later, High Court Judge Frank Seepersad considered a similar application from another of the detainees.
However, Justice Seepersad did not order his release as his colleague did with the six others as the case came up for hearing after Hinds issued the suggested declaration regarding the location.
In their application for judicial review, the group was mainly challenging the failure of Hinds to place them on supervision orders so that they could complete their asylum seeker/refugee applications with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
In deciding that the group should be granted leave to pursue its substantive case, Justice Rahim noted that under the Immigration Act, the Chief Immigration Officer first considers whether detainees should be released on supervision orders pending deportation.
He noted that the National Security Minister, who is responsible for signing off on deportations, has the discretion to veto such supervision orders.
Justice Rahim also rejected the detainees’ claims over the effect of the delayed designation of the facility on their continued detention.
However, Justice Rahim did rule that they had raised a valid challenge over the failure of both parties to consider the supervision orders after deportation could not be quickly facilitated after their initial arrest.
In deciding on whether to grant an injunction ordering their conditional release pending the outcome of their UNHCR applications, Justice Rahim suggested that it (the injunction) should instead be related to the outcome of the substantive case.
He ruled that the balance of justice required the granting of the interim order as he referenced evidence of the deplorable conditions at the facility and allegations of abuse towards detainees.
“The evidence in this case, should it be true, demonstrates nothing short of inhumane treatment towards some members of the group, and their circumstances of detention fall far short of what is to be expected to say the least,” Justice Rahim said.
“Not only is it likely to be harmful to the applicants but such actions may reflect adversely on the reputation of the nation on the international front,” he added.
The case, which was deemed urgent, was transferred to Justice Quinlan-Williams.
The migrants were represented by Elton Prescott, SC, Criston J Williams, Blaine Sobrian and Shivanand Mohan.
Gregory Delzin, Vanessa Gopaul, Shalini Singh, Vincent Jardine, and Avion Romain represented the State.
