Jamaican on criminal charges to be deported soon

A JAMAICAN man is expected to be sent back to his country soon after losing his legal challenge against his deportation.

O’Neil Williams sought interim relief to stay a deportation order issued on November 10, 2017, pending the hearing and determination of a constitutional claim. He also wanted an order directing the Chief Immigration Officer (CIO) to release him on an order of supervision until the case was heard.

In a written decision last week, Justice Margaret Mohammed dismissed Williams’ application on the grounds it was an abuse, and he did not show good reasons for the delay in bringing his action. His claim for interim relief was filed on August 15.

Williams arrived in TT on December 28, 2010 and was granted a six-month stay as a visitor.

He was charged for marijuana trafficking in 2011 – this charge was eventually dismissed in 2015 – and again in December 2014 for cocaine trafficking and forgery, and was committed to stand trial in 2018.

He was also charged in September 2014 for cocaine trafficking where he was convicted and sentenced to three years’ hard labour. He appealed and a retrial ordered by there was none since he had served his sentence at the time of the appeal in 2018.

Williams also filed three previous court actions against the Attorney General and the CIO in 2017, 2018 and in March.

The 2019 judicial review claim is scheduled for decision on October 7.

In his application, Williams’ attorneys Peter Carter and Shanice Ramdhan argued he would be seriously prejudiced to pursue his claim if he is deported and that sending him back was to interfere with his rights to a fair trial, since he has pending criminal charges against him. They also argued that he had a right to freedom of movement as a Caricom national.

The attorneys also argued that by failing to consult with the Director of Public Prosecutions, the CIO acted unlawfully, unreasonably and illegally.

Attorneys for the AG and the CIO, Linda Khan and Andella Ramroop, argued that there was no serious issue to be tried, since the action was frivolous and an abuse since the deportation order was issued since 2017 and he had several opportunities to challenge it but did not.

They also submitted that, because of his criminal conviction and charges, he was now considered a prohibited person under the Immigration Act.

In her decision, Mohammed agreed with the State’s arguments that at the time the deportation order was issued, Williams was serving a sentence and had not yet been committed to stand trial for the cocaine trafficking and forgery charges. She also added that he still fell within section 8(1) (k) of the Immigration Act, since a committal meant that there was reasonable grounds for suspecting that he was engaged in drug trafficking.

Mohammed also held that his claim of constitutional breaches was without merit, adding that if he was deported, he would not run afoul of his bail conditions, since he would not have left TT voluntarily and the CIO could inform the DPP that he had been deported.

She also said he knew about the deportation order and filed three actions in the court, none of which challenged the validity of the order.