Your Caribbean Legal Update

Key Cases in 2025

The Caribbean legal landscape continues to evolve through significant judicial decisions that shape the region's jurisprudence. This review examines notable cases from early 2025 across multiple jurisdictions, highlighting key legal principles and their broader implications for practitioners and the public. Cases include:

• The Duty of Candour Reinforced: National Bank of Anguilla v Chief Minister of Anguilla
• Criminal Sentencing Guidelines in Practice: The King v Leon Hawkins
• Professional Regulation and Legitimate Expectation: Gibson v The Bahamas Pharmacy Council
• Judicial Independence and Constitutional Protection: Ayers-Caesar v JLSC
• Emerging Intellectual Property Disputes: Jamaica's Rum Wars

The Duty of Candour Reinforced: National Bank of Anguilla v Chief Minister of Anguilla

The Privy Council's decision in National Bank of Anguilla Ltd and another v Chief Minister of Anguilla and 3 others [2025] UKPC 14 has provided crucial guidance on the duty of candour in judicial review proceedings. The Board allowed the appeal and granted leave for judicial review, but more significantly, it emphasized the fundamental importance of the duty of candour, particularly as it applies to public officials.

The Board made clear that this duty operates from the initial leave stage, requiring sufficient information to be provided to the court to enable proper determination of leave applications. The decision stated that the next procedural step should be a hearing on disclosure, though this could be avoided if respondents provide full and accurate affidavits together with all relevant documentation.

Practical Implications: This decision serves as a timely reminder to practitioners about the critical importance of candour in public law proceedings. At a time when parties across various jurisdictions have increasingly skirted this fundamental duty, the Privy Council's emphasis provides valuable guidance for both seasoned practitioners and those new to the profession.

Criminal Sentencing Guidelines in Practice: The King v Leon Hawkins

The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court's decision in The King v Leon Hawkins (Case No. ANUHCR2021/0013) offers valuable insight into the practical application of the newly reissued Sentencing Guidelines for Homicide Offences in Antigua and Barbuda, dated January 6, 2025.

Case Background and Facts

Leon Hawkins pleaded guilty to manslaughter following an altercation with his brother, Kareem Santiago. The incident involved Hawkins using a knife that Santiago had initially retrieved from his vehicle. After a physical altercation, Hawkins used the weapon to stab his brother in the neck, resulting in Santiago's death.

Application of Sentencing Guidelines

Justice Bakre methodically applied the four-tiered sentencing framework:

Category Assessment: The court classified the offense as Level C (Medium seriousness) with a starting point of 12 years imprisonment, within a range of 6 to 16 years. This classification recognized the "gross and extreme conduct from the victim" while acknowledging that death resulted from an unlawful act with intention to cause harm.

Mitigating Factors: The court noted Hawkins' expressions of remorse, cooperation with police, and absence of previous violent convictions, reducing the sentence to 10 years.

Early Plea Consideration: Rather than the standard one-third reduction for an early guilty plea, the court applied a 25% reduction due to the timing of the plea, resulting in 7 years and 6 months.

Final Sentence: After crediting 1,844 days spent on remand, Hawkins received a sentence of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment.

Significance: This case demonstrates the practical application of structured sentencing guidelines now being implemented across several Caribbean jurisdictions, including Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. It provides valuable guidance for criminal practitioners on how trial courts approach these guidelines in practice.

Professional Regulation and Legitimate Expectation: Gibson v The Bahamas Pharmacy Council

The Bahamas Court of Appeal's decision in Rudolph J. Gibson v The Bahamas Pharmacy Council (PAdmin App. No. 10 of 2023) addresses the challenging intersection of professional regulation and legitimate expectation doctrine.

The Dilemma

Gibson was among 17 individuals who obtained pharmacy degrees from McHari Institute between 2006 and 2011. After receiving his license in 2012 and annual renewals until 2016, the Pharmacy Council refused renewal in 2017, determining that McHari lacked proper accreditation under the Pharmacy Act.

Legal Arguments and Decision

Gibson's judicial review challenge rested on legitimate expectation—having received initial licensing and subsequent renewals, he argued he had a reasonable expectation of continued renewal. He also claimed procedural unfairness due to lack of opportunity to be heard.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that legitimate expectation cannot arise when the underlying registration was unlawful from inception. The court emphasized that the earlier licensing was done "in error and in breach of the Pharmacy Act," and that the public interest in maintaining professional standards outweighed any individual expectation.

Broader Implications: This decision highlights the urgent need for legislative frameworks to protect the public from unaccredited educational institutions. As online and alternative educational providers proliferate across the region, the case illustrates the harsh consequences of regulatory failures and the limited recourse available to affected individuals.

Judicial Independence and Constitutional Protection: Ayers-Caesar v JLSC

The Privy Council's unanimous decision in Marcia Ayers-Caesar v The Judicial and Legal Service Commission [2025] UKPC 15 reinforces fundamental principles of judicial independence and constitutional protection for judges.

Constitutional Context

The case centered on Section 137 of Trinidad and Tobago's Constitution, which provides that judges may only be removed for "inability or misbehaviour" and only through prescribed procedures. Ayers-Caesar, appointed as a High Court Judge in April 2017, faced criticism over incomplete magisterial matters from her previous role.

The Commission's Actions

Following public outcry, the Commission gave Ayers-Caesar an ultimatum: resign and return to the magistracy, or face disciplinary proceedings. After communication through the Chief Justice, she resigned from the High Court bench.

The Privy Council's Analysis

The Board found that the Commission's actions constituted unlawful pressure that breached Section 137. The decision emphasized that constitutional protections for judicial independence cannot be circumvented through indirect pressure, even when framed as offering "options."

Future Considerations: The decision highlights the need for judicial commissions and applicants to address part-heard cases proactively during appointment processes. With increasing judicial mobility globally, this issue will likely become more prevalent.

Emerging Intellectual Property Disputes: Jamaica's Rum Wars

A significant intellectual property dispute is developing in Jamaica between the Spirits Pool Association (SPA) and National Rums of Jamaica (NRJ) regarding geographical indication standards for "Jamaican Rum."

The Controversy

In late 2024, the Jamaica Intellectual Property Office (JIPO) approved amendments prohibiting overseas aging for rum bearing the Jamaica geographical indication. The SPA advocates for these restrictions to protect against international competitors, while NRJ argues that their historical practice of bulk export and overseas aging should continue to qualify as authentically Jamaican.

Industry Impact: This dispute reflects broader tensions between protecting traditional production methods and accommodating established commercial practices. The outcome will significantly impact Jamaica's rum industry and may influence geographical indication policies across the Caribbean.

Conclusion

These 2025 cases demonstrate the continued evolution of Caribbean jurisprudence across multiple areas of law. From reinforcing fundamental duties in public law proceedings to navigating the complexities of professional regulation and constitutional protection, these decisions provide valuable guidance for practitioners throughout the region.

The emphasis on procedural fairness, the practical application of sentencing guidelines, and the protection of constitutional principles reflects a maturing legal system that balances individual rights with broader public interests. As Caribbean jurisdictions continue to develop their legal frameworks, these cases will serve as important precedents for future decisions.

For legal practitioners, these developments underscore the importance of staying current with evolving legal standards and maintaining the highest professional standards in all proceedings. The decisions collectively reinforce that fundamental legal principles—candour, procedural fairness, and constitutional protection—remain paramount in the administration of justice across the Caribbean.

Authored By

Nadine Atkinson-Flowers

Share this post

• Caribbean Legal Update