| Basic information | Substance of the ruling | Accessibility of the case and further relevant links | |||||||
| Date | Name of the case (or case number) | The body delivering the decision | Keywords, topic | Executive part | Brief summary | Full text | Page at the website of the issuing court | Page in other databases | Unofficial materials, press communications |
| 26.05.2021 | B.W.S. v. Office Director of Public Prosecution CRI/con/0004 | Supreme Court, criminal division | Procedural law, access to justice, right to a fair trial | Claim rejected | On 2015 the applicant was accused of arson. Then he was arrested and charged with arson on 2017. On 2017 the applicant pleaded that he was not guilty before the Supreme Court. But due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the trial could not take place. On 2020 the applicant filed a constitutional motion claiming a violation of his constitutional right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and then he requested an order to permanently suspend the criminal proceedings. The applicant claimed that he had never been provided with a reasonable explanation for the delay that the situation had caused him severe prejudice. Since the time he was charged, the applicant had been free on bail. The Court has dismissed the application and mandated that the case be scheduled for trial at an early date, as criminal trials have resumed. The Court has held that there must be no further unmotivated and unnecessary delay in this matter. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/sites/default/files/node-case/2021-11/bahamassupreme-courtcriminal-division26-may-2021.pdf | https://www.bahamasjudiciary.com/ | https://www.covid19litigation.org/sites/default/files/node-case/2021-11/bahamassupreme-courtcriminal-division26-may-2021.pdf;
https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/bahamas-supreme-court-criminal-division-bws-v-office-director-public-prosecution |
|
| 23.03.2021 | 2020/PUB/jrv/00024 | Supreme Court of the Bahamas, Public Law Division | Freedom of movement of people, Right to an effective remedy | Claim rejected | Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Prime Minister declared a state of emergency, and various measures were introduced. The Applicant - who was an owner of a local business - approached the Court and requested the review of these measures. The Applicant claimed that these measures were not reasonably justified in accordance with the Constitution. The Court dismissed the claim as constitutional redress is available as an alternative means. | https://www.bahamasjudiciary.com/judgments/ | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/bahamas-supreme-court-bahamas-public-law-division-2020pubjrv00024-2021-03-23 | ||
| 11.12.2020 | 2020/CLE/gen/00611 | Supreme Court of the Bahamas, Common Law and Equity Division | Freedom of assembly, Freedom of public gathering | Claim rejected. | The dispute arose in connection with the right of assembly and gatherings. The Plaintiffs were the rival members of a tennis association. They claimed that the Association had failed to follow its rules, and contented that the restrictions on large gatherings and physical distancing requirements had not been relaxed by the date on which the Annual General Meeting and general elections were slated to be held at their premises. After verifying the rules conferring its jurisdiction and recalling that judges can intervene in the affairs of private sporting bodies and similar associations, the Supreme Court has relied on a four-part test to examine the Plaintiff’s request and has concluded that the balance of convenance, i.e., deciding what degree of prejudice the grant or refusal of the interim remedy would impose upon each side, does not favor the grant of the injunction and they declared that there was no serious issue to be tried. | https://www.bahamasjudiciary.com/judgments/ | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/bahamas-supreme-court-bahamas-common-law-and-equity-division-2020clegen00611-2020-12-11 | https://thenassauguardian.com/legal-action-taken-against-blta/ | |
