Z. G.; A. B. v The Minister of Natonal Security; G. M. v The Minister of Natonal Security

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Mr. Justice R. Rahim
• Judgment Date: 14 November 2023
• Neutral Citation: TT 2023 HC 357
• Docket Number: Claim No. CV2022-00120 Claim No. CV2022-00176
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)

IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT CHAPTER 7:09

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGALITY OF THE DEPORTATION ORDER MADE BY THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY ON THE 2 ^ND NOVEMBER, 2021 IN RELATION TO Z. G.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY Z. G. FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY TO ISSUE A DEPORTATION ORDER ON THE 2 ^ND NOVEMBER, 2021 IN RELATION TO Z. G.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 4 (A), (B) and (C) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

BETWEEN

Z. G. M. B. (By her mother and next friend Z. G.)

Claimants

IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT CHAPTER 7:09

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGALITY OF THE DEPORTATION ORDER MADE BY THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY ON THE 5 ^TH NOVEMBER, 2021 IN RELATION TO A. B.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY A. B. FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY TO ISSUE A DEPORTATION ORDER ON THE 5 ^TH NOVEMBER, 2021 IN RELATION TO A. B.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 4 (A), (B) and (C) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

BETWEEN

A. B. J. I. (By her mother and next friend A. B.)

Claimants

and

The Minister of Natonal Security

Respondent

IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT CHAPTER 7:09

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGALITY OF THE DEPORTATION ORDER MADE BY THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY ON THE 2 ^ND NOVEMBER, 2021 IN RELATION TO G. M.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY G. M. FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE MINISTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY TO ISSUE A DEPORTATION ORDER ON THE 2 ^ND NOVEMBER, 2021 IN RELATION TO G. M.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 4 (A), (B) and (C) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

BETWEEN

G. M. R. H. (By her mother and next friend G. M.)

Claimants

and

The Minister of Natonal Security

Respondent

Before

the Honourable Mr. Justice R. Rahim

Claim No. CV2022-00120

Claim No. CV2022-00200

Claim No. CV2022-00176

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(Sub-Registry San Fernando)

Appearances:

Claimants: G. Ramdeen instructed by D. Harripaul.

Respondent: G. Delzin and D. Mano instructed by M. Benjamin, C. Pegus, F. Ali and S. Heeraman.

Introduction

1 In this consolidated claim, the adult female Claimants (all citizens of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela), challenge the decision of the Minister of National Security (“the Minister”) to issue deportation orders against them and to effect such deportation. They have brought mixed claims for judicial review and constitutional relief. For convenience the Claimants are referred to as Z. G., A. B. and G. M. They also bring the claims on behalf of their respective minor children who were born in Trinidad and Tobago.

2 The relief claimed by the Claimants in the judicial review are;

• a. A declaration that the decision and action of the Respondent, in issuing the deportation orders dated the 2nd November, 2021 (Z. G. and G. M.), 5th November 2021 (A. B.) in relation to the First Named Claimant is illegal, irrational, unreasonable and amounts to an unlawful exercise of power.

• b. A declaration that the decision of the Respondent to issue the deportation orders dated the 2nd November, 2021 (Z. G. and G. M.), 5th November 2021 (A. B.) was in breach of section 20 of the Judicial Review Act and accordingly null, void and of no effect.

• c. A declaration that the decision and actions of the Respondent to order the detention of the first named Claimant pending deportation is illegal, irrational, unreasonable and amounts to an unlawful exercise of power.

• d. An order of certiorari to remove to this Court and quash the deportation orders dated the 2nd November, 2021 (Z. G. and G. M.), 5th November 2021 (A. B.).

• e. An order of certiorari to remove to this Court and quash the decision of the Respondent to order the detention of the Claimant pending deportation.

3 The constitutional declarations sought are as follows;

• a. A declaration that the decision and action of the Respondent, in issuing a deportation order dated the 2nd November, 2021 (Z. G. and G. M.), 5th November, 2021 (A. B.) in relation to the First Named Claimant is in breach of the First Named Claimant's fundamental rights guaranteed under sections 4 (b) and (c) of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.

• b. A declaration that the decision of the Respondent in issuing a deportation order dated the 2nd November, 2021 (Z. G. and G. M.), 5th November, 2021 (A. B.) in relation to the First Named Claimant is in breach of the Second Named Claimant's fundamental rights guaranteed under section 4 (b) and (c) of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.

4 The deportation orders have since been stayed pending the decision of this court.

The common factual thread between the adult Claimants

5 The Claimants all left Venezuela and entered Trinidad and Tobago through an illegal port of entry and each gave birth to a minor while present in Trinidad and Tobago.

• a. Z. G. is twenty six years old (26) and claimed to have entered om May 25, 2019 with two of her children who are also Venezuelan but are not Claimants. A third child joined her later on from Venezuela. In a statement given to the Respondent on May 27, 2019 the Respondent states that she admitted to having so entered on May 19, 2019 on a fishing vessel. A. B. is twenty seven (27) years old and arrived in Trinidad on November 5, 2019 by boat with her two minor children. G. M. is thirty (30) years old and entered Trinidad on a fishing vessel on May 20, 2019 with her then one minor child.

• b. The adults Claimants were either detained or arrested, and interviewed and released on orders of supervision. Pursuant to Section 17 of the Immigration Act Chapter 18:01, the Claimants were placed on repeated orders of supervision which required them to report to the immigration department on a regular basis. Three years later, the Respondent issued deportation orders against all of the first named Claimants for breaching the immigration laws of Trinidad and Tobago.

A matter of procedure

6 It is the case with each of the adult Claimants who allege that they can speak English to a limited extent that they have deposed to matters of law and legal arguments in their affidavits by way of over 40 paragraphs each. Several things need be said in that regard. Firstly, affidavits must contain only matters of fact that are relevant to the claim. An affidavit is not the place to set out and argue law. Secondly and in any event, these Claimants are obviously not experts in the field of law so that it does not lie with them to swear to the contents of International Treaties and legal authorities and like matters. Thirdly, the only reasonable inference to be drawn is that the Claimants were not responsible for drafting those parts of the affidavits that contain law and legal arguments. Fourthly, the filing lawyers and later on the advocate for the Claimants must have been aware of the trite law concerning the contents of affidavits so that to put such affidavits in that form before the courts must have been, it is reasonable to infer, a deliberate choice. This is very concerning to this court as more and more there has been a developing trend to place large tracts of law into affidavits in matters coming before the court in some cases because of apparent ignorance of the principle by the inexperienced lawyer (which is not an excuse) and in some cases, as is the case here by deliberate action. This court will not tolerate such an abuse of its process. This is a clear and deliberate violation of applicable legal principles which has the effect to waste judicial time. The fact that the matter is one in the area of public law makes no difference. As a consequence the offending paragraphs of each of the affidavits filed by the Claimants shall be struck out, in the case of Z. G. paragraphs 3 to 44, in the case of A. B., 3 to 43 and G. M., 1 to 41.

The factual differences between the cases

Z. G.

7 Z. G. filed her affidavit on January 12, 2022, (CV2022-00120). Before coming to this country, she was a single parent, living [Redacted] with her three children. She deposed that the children's father physically abused her. Therefore, on May 25, 2019, she left Venezuela with two of her children and arrived in Trinidad the same day to start a new life. On her arrival, Z. G. stayed with the brother of her children's father. Two days later, she presented herself to the immigration authorities and was ordered to submit herself to the immigration department every month and every two months.

8 The second Claimant and the youngest child of Z. G., M. B. ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ was born in Trinidad and Tobago. The registration of birth in Trinidad and Tobago dated [Redacted], 2021 (PDF 24 of the affidavit, CV2022-0120) states Z. G. as the mother of a child (no name) born on [Redacted], 2021, at the [Redacted] General Hospital.

9 Z. G. lives with her common-law husband, N. M. ▀▀▀▀▀▀ and their four children. N. M., a national of Venezuela was issued a registration card by Trinidad and Tobago in 2019, is employed and takes care of the family. It is her testimony that if she were unwell during her pregnancy, she would present herself to the immigration division the following day. This happened on no more than three occasions. On one occasion, she took her son to the immigration division, and an immigration officer asked for the child's birth certificate. She informed the officer that she only had the registration form because the District Registrar's office was closed because the Registrar had COVID-19.

10 She was issued a supervision order on April 20, 2021. On November 2, 2021, the Minister issued a deportation order, but she was only aware of it on December 15, 2021 when she signed for receiving the order.

11 It is her evidence that if she is deported, no one will care for...