Tweet

The long-standing and high-profile legal battle involving the Customs department and Ernest Hilaire has taken a significant turn. The Court of Appeal yesterday granted leave to appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) to Allen Chastanet, the Appellant, resulting in a victory for Mr. Chastanet on his application for leave to appeal to the CCJ.

This latest development follows years of litigation and public scrutiny. The case initially arose when charges were filed by the Customs Department, during the tenure of Peter Chiquot as Comptroller of Customs (Ag), against Mr. Ernest Hilaire for failing to provide documentation of ownership of a vehicle. His successor, Comptroller Emmanuel, only two months after the general elections withdrew the charges.

In response to the withdrawal of charges, Mr. Chastanet sought leave in the High Court to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Comptroller of Customs to withdraw the charges. However, leave for judicial review was denied by the High Court. This denial was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Undeterred, Mr. Chastanet then applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal the matter to the CCJ contending that amongst other things, the proposed appeal raises issues of great general or public importance within the meaning of Section 108(2) of the Constitution of Saint Lucia. The Court of Appeal accepted the legal arguments submitted by the Appellant and went further to say that the proposed appeal raised serious legal and constitutional issues that could benefit from the highest judicial pronouncements. Examples of these issues include: (1) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the power of discontinuance could be implied under the Interpretation Act and the Constitution; (2) whether the legal standard applicable to a review by the courts of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by statutory functionaries such as the Comptroller of Customs ought to be circumscribed in the same way and to the same standard applicable to review of the powers of the office of the DPP; (3) whether the Court of Appeal was wrong in concluding, as did the judge below, that, on the evidence the DPP had not taken over the prosecution of Dr. Hilaire; and (4) whether it was not at least arguable that the DPP had taken over, in exercise of his constitutional powers thereby making the DPP the only person capable of withdrawing the charges against Dr. Hilaire.

The Court concluded that these are all issues of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the CCJ for its consideration and determination as to the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal. Consequently, the applicant met the requirement for the grant of leave to appeal to the CCJ.

This development underscores the legal importance of the Rovergate saga and integrity in public office. When integrity is maintained it fosters confidence in institutions, ensures ethical decision-making and protects the public interest. Conversely, its absence erodes trust and fuels corruption. The UWP is committed to ethical leadership and to ensuring that no one, not even persons in public life are above the rule of law.

End of Release

From the desk of the PRO

United Workers Party