Derek Achong

A Venezue­lan woman and her 13-year-old son, who were among a group of il­le­gal mi­grants who re­turned to this coun­try days af­ter be­ing sent back last De­cem­ber, have lost their ap­peal over re­main­ing de­tained pend­ing the de­ter­mi­na­tion of their sub­stan­tive im­mi­gra­tion law­suit.

De­liv­er­ing a judge­ment on Wednes­day, Ap­pel­late Judges Prakash Moo­sai, Gillian Lucky and Mi­ra Dean-Ar­mor­er dis­missed the ap­peal of the moth­er and son, who can­not be named as he is a mi­nor. 

Ac­cord­ing to the ev­i­dence in the case, the group was de­tained short­ly af­ter ar­riv­ing in Chatam on No­vem­ber 17 last year.

The mi­grants, the youngest of whom is four months old, were test­ed for COVID-19 and were all found to be neg­a­tive.

They were then held in cus­tody at sev­er­al po­lice sta­tions, un­til they were placed on two civil­ian ves­sels and es­cort­ed out of T&T wa­ters by the Coast Guard.

Three days lat­er, they re­turned and were again de­tained. 

Most of the group filed law­suits over the State’s han­dling of them, as de­por­ta­tion or­ders were is­sued. 

The woman and her son sought and ob­tained three or­ders bar­ring their de­por­ta­tion pend­ing the de­ter­mi­na­tion of their case. 

They al­so filed a habeas cor­pus writ seek­ing their re­lease pend­ing the out­come of the case, which was de­nied. 

In the ap­peal, the pan­el had to con­sid­er whether the State had a law­ful ba­sis to de­tain them and whether the lengthy pe­ri­od of their de­ten­tion was un­rea­son­able.

Dean-Ar­mor­er, who wrote the judge­ment, said that their de­ten­tion was law­ful, as the Im­mi­gra­tion Act al­lows for de­ten­tion pend­ing ex­e­cu­tion of de­por­ta­tion or­ders.

She al­so ruled that their de­ten­tion was self-in­duced. 

“The ev­i­dence and the re­turn of the writ sug­gest that it is with­in the pow­er of the Ap­pel­lants to end their de­ten­tion. This will clear­ly end their re­straint, as they re­turn to their coun­try and their lib­er­ty re­stored,” Jus­tice Dean-Ar­mor­er said. 

She said that the pe­ri­od of de­ten­tion could not be con­sid­ered un­rea­son­able, as it is de­pen­dent on the de­ter­mi­na­tion of their case by a court. 

“As long as the con­sti­tu­tion­al mo­tion is re­ceiv­ing the at­ten­tion of the Courts of T&T, it seems that the de­ten­tion is with­in the band of a pe­ri­od which is rea­son­able,” she said. 

Jus­tice Dean-Ar­mor­er not­ed that the judge who re­fused their re­lease was al­so right to con­sid­er the pos­si­bil­i­ty of the moth­er and son ab­scond­ing. 

“Their il­le­gal re­turn, fol­low­ing their ini­tial es­cort out of Trinidad, speaks elo­quent­ly of their de­sire to re­main in Trinidad. They did so in breach of the laws of this and their own coun­try. This is a re­al and rel­e­vant fac­tor,” she said. 

The Chief Im­mi­gra­tion Of­fi­cer was rep­re­sent­ed by Fyard Ho­sein, SC, Rishi Das and Raphael Ajod­hia. The moth­er and son were rep­re­sent­ed by Ger­ald Ramdeen, Umesh Ma­haraj and Dayadai Har­ri­paul. 

Guardian Me­dia un­der­stands that the rel­a­tives’ lawyers are con­sid­er­ing lodg­ing a fi­nal ap­peal over the is­sue be­fore the Privy Coun­cil.