By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS 

Tribune Staff Reporter 

lmunnings@tribunemedia.net

THE Supreme Court has awarded $25,000 to Sonette Joseph, ruling that her constitutional rights were breached when she was unlawfully detained for 30 days in 2018 without charge, court appearance, or deportation order.

Acting Registrar Renaldo Toote found the detention violated Articles 17 and 19 of the Constitution of The Bahamas, describing it as “unlawful from the outset and in breach of constitutional safeguards.”

Ms Joseph, born in New Providence in 1988 to undocumented Haitian parents, had spent much of her life in Haiti but returned to The Bahamas in May 2017 to apply for Bahamian citizenship. During an immigration raid on July 6, 2018, she was arrested at her home despite presenting her original Bahamian birth certificate to officers. 

She was transported to the Carmichael Road Detention Centre and held there for 30 days before being released through legal action via a habeas corpus application. She was not charged, brought before a court, or presented with a deportation order.

The court held that Ms Joseph’s detention lacked legal basis and was conducted without due process. 

“Detaining someone without charge, without a court appearance, and without confirming their immigration status is a clear breach of the Constitution,” the Registrar said.

The court affirmed that even if a person’s status is unresolved or documentation incomplete, constitutional protections require that detention be reviewed within 48 hours, as set out in the Immigration Act and Article 19(3) of the Constitution.

Ms Joseph, who speaks very little English, gave evidence with the help of a court-appointed Creole interpreter. She alleged that during detention, she was slapped, pushed, verbally abused, denied access to legal representation and basic hygiene items, and made to stand in the sun for long periods. She also testified that the dormitories were cleaned only once during her 30-day stay and that she experienced emotional distress, embarrassment, and reputational damage.

However, many of these claims were challenged by the Defendants and ultimately rejected by the court due to inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence. Peter Joseph, the officer in charge of the detention centre at the time, testified that detainees were routinely given care packages containing soap, toothpaste, and sanitary pads and that immigration officers only entered the dormitories during feeding and medical escorts. 

Surveillance cameras monitored all movement areas, though not the interiors of dormitories. He said Ms Joseph ever lodged no complaints of physical abuse.

The court also noted contradictions in Ms Joseph’s testimony. While she initially said that she was not seen by a doctor and suffered constipation for 12 days, she later admitted during cross-examination that she had seen a doctor and received medication but claimed the treatment made her feel worse. No medical records or witness testimony were provided to support either version. The court found these inconsistencies, along with the lack of any documentary or independent evidence, significantly weakened her credibility.

Although the court did not find sufficient proof of physical abuse or degrading treatment, it recognised that the failure to conduct a lawful immigration process caused Ms Joseph emotional distress and public humiliation. The Registrar noted that even in the absence of malicious intent, procedural failures by state authorities that result in unlawful detention justify compensation.

Ms Joseph had sought $270,000 under various heads: $125,000 for compensatory and vindicatory damages, $40,000 for assault and battery, $30,000 in aggravated damages, and $75,000 for constitutional breaches. 

The court awarded her $20,000 in general damages for unlawful detention and $5,000 in aggravated damages to reflect the emotional distress caused by the nature of her arrest and lack of procedural safeguards. No award was made for exemplary damages, as the court found no evidence of systemic abuse, deliberate misconduct, or malice by the authorities. “There is no proof of deliberate misconduct or systemic abuse by the authorities,” the Registrar said.

On the issue of legal costs, the court noted that Ms Joseph had succeeded in proving that her detention was unlawful, but had only been awarded 9.2 percent of the total amount claimed. 

The defendants successfully challenged the credibility of her claims and resisted the majority of the damages sought. As a result, the court awarded her a reduced sum of $10,000 in legal costs. Interest on the damages is to accrue at the statutory rate of 6.25 percent from the date of filing until full payment.

The court referenced established legal authorities, including Takitota v The Attorney General, Ramon Lop v The Attorney General, and Farquharson v The Attorney General, reinforcing that detention powers must be exercised strictly in accordance with law and constitutional safeguards. 

The court noted that even when an person’s immigration status is uncertain, they remain entitled to timely judicial review and protection from arbitrary or prolonged detention.

“The State cannot detain someone indefinitely or without proper legal justification, even where deportation is anticipated,” the Registrar said.