Laramore v Commodore of the Royal Bahamas Defence Force
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Mance |
| Judgment Date | 08 May 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] UKPC 13 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Appeal No 0057 of 2016 |
| Date | 08 May 2017 |
[2017] UKPC 13
Lord Mance
Lord Kerr
Lord Sumption
Lord Reed
Lord Hughes
Appeal No 0057 of 2016
Privy Council
From the Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas
Appellants
Peter Knox QC
Kayla Green-Smith
Thora Gardiner
(Instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP)
Respondent
Wayne R Munroe QC
Clinton Clarke Jnr
(Instructed by Munroe & Associates)
Heard on 23 February 2017
Colours parades have been a tradition in the Royal Bahamian Defence Force ("the Force") since its creation in 1980. They occur regularly on 14 occasions a week, on four of which occasions (spread over three days) Christian prayers are also said at one point in the parade. There are also ceremonial parades involving the Force during which "ceremonial prayers" are said. The present case concerns the regular weekly colours parades. During these parades, immediately prior to prayers, instructions are given "Parade Off Caps" and "Stand at ease" or "Stand easy", followed immediately after prayers by "Parade Ho!", at which the parade comes to attention and "Parade on Caps".
From 1993 to 2006, pursuant to Coral Harbour Temporary Memorandum No 20/93 ("the 1993 Memorandum"), members of religious beliefs other than Christianity were given the opportunity to excuse themselves by falling out during the prayers, falling back in immediately thereafter. This was achieved by an announcement "Stand by for [Morning] [Evening] Prayers, those who wish to fall out". On 9 November 2006, this arrangement was revoked by a further Temporary Memorandum No 67/06 ("the 2006 Memorandum"), stating that "Effective immediately, all personnel are to remain present for the conduct of prayers during ceremonial parades and morning/evening colours", that parade commanders and duty officers were to follow the standard "Off caps" routine and that the "fall out" announcement would no longer occur.
The present case challenges the constitutionality of the 2006 Memorandum. It is brought by former Petty Officer Gregory Laramore. He enlisted in the Force on 16 August 1982, and he re-engaged formally in it on 28 December 1984, giving a solemn declaration at the latter date that he was "willing to fulfil the engagement made". At those times, Mr Laramore was a Christian. He converted to the Islamic faith in 1993, and, on behalf of others as well as himself, made known at that time that they did not wish to be a part of a religious assembly other than that of their own belief. As a result of this, the 1993 Memorandum was issued and the new procedure introduced, which lasted until the 2006 Memorandum.
Some months after the 2006 Memorandum, on 24 April 2007, Mr Laramore requested "to be exempted from all Christian activity in the [Force] and other religion other than Islam as it is known that I am a believer in Islam". On 25 and again 27 April 2007 he left parade during colours ceremonies when prayers were about to take place. He was charged with disobedience, but before the resulting disciplinary proceedings were concluded, he issued the present claim challenging the constitutionality of the 2006 Memorandum and claiming damages. The defendants (appellants on this appeal) are the Commodore of the Force, the Attorney General and three individuals involved in charging or seeking to discipline Mr Laramore. Their defence is in outline that the 2006 Memorandum did not infringe Mr Laramore's rights and/or was justified to ensure the efficient administration of the Force. On 9th April 2013 Sir Michael Barnett CJ rejected this defence and awarded Mr Laramore $10,000 damages in circumstances where he had been "required to suffer the indignity and costs of disciplinary proceedings for standing up for his constitutional rights". An appeal was on 24 July 2014 dismissed by a majority of the Court of Appeal consisting of Conteh JA with whom John JA agreed, with Allen P dissenting. A further appeal comes as of right before the Board under section 104(1) of the Constitution.
The Constitution enacted in 1973 commences with these recitals:
"WHEREAS Four hundred and 81 years ago the rediscovery of this Family of Islands, Rocks and Cays heralded the rebirth of the New World;
AND WHEREAS the People of this Family of Islands recognise that the preservation of their Freedom will be guaranteed by a national commitment to Self-discipline, Industry, Loyalty, Unity and an abiding respect for Christian values and the Rule of Law;
NOW KNOW YE THEREFORE:
We the Inheritors of and Successors to this Family of Islands, recognising the Supremacy of God and believing in the Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Individual, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM IN SOLEMN PRAISE the Establishment of a Free and Democratic Sovereign Nation founded on Spiritual Values and in which no Man, Woman or Child shall ever be Slave or Bondsman to anyone or their Labour exploited or their Lives frustrated by deprivation, AND DO HEREBY PROVIDE by these Articles for the indivisible Unity and Creation under God of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas."
The text goes on to provide as follows:
"CHAPTER III
PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF THE INDIVIDUAL
15. Whereas every person in The Bahamas is entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, that is to say, has the right, whatever his race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed or sex, but subject to respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for the public interest, to each and all of the following, namely —
(a) life, liberty, security of the person and the protection of the law;
(b) freedom of conscience, of expression and of assembly and association; and
(c) protection for the privacy of his home and other property and from deprivation of property without compensation,
the subsequent provisions of this Chapter shall have effect for the purpose of affording protection to the aforesaid rights and freedoms subject to such limitations of that protection as are contained in those provisions, being limitations designed to ensure that the enjoyment of the said rights and freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others or the public interest.
…..
22. (1) Except with his consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience, and for the purposes of this Article the said freedom includes freedom of thought and of religion, freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others, and both in public and in private, to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
(2) Except with his consent (or, if he is a person who has not attained the age of eighteen years, the consent of his guardian) no person attending any place of education shall be required to receive religious instruction or to take part in or attend any religious ceremony or observance if that instruction, ceremony or observance relates to a religion other than his own.
(3) No religious body or denomination shall be prevented from or hindered in providing religious instruction for persons of that body or denomination in the course of any education provided by that body or denomination whether or not that body or denomination is in receipt of any government subsidy, grant or other form of financial assistance designed to meet, in whole or in part, the cost of such course of education.
(4) No person shall be compelled to take any oath which is contrary to his religion or belief or to take any oath in a manner which is contrary to his religion or belief or to take any oath in a manner which is contrary to his religion or belief.
(5) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this Article to the extent that the law in question makes provision which is reasonably required —
(a) in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; or
(b) for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of other persons, including the right to observe and practise any religion without the unsolicited interference of members of any other religion,
and except so far as that provision or, as the case may be, the thing done under the authority thereof is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society."
While the recitals to the Constitution express a commitment to the supremacy of God and to an abiding respect for Christian values, it is not suggested that this qualifies or limits the freedoms guaranteed by the substantive text of Chapter III of the Constitution, though it could, arguably, have some relevance to an issue of justification (particularly in the context of ceremonial parades, not directly before the Board on this appeal). In Chapter III, it is also common ground that article 15 is, in the present context, introductory. So the constitutional issue before the Board turns on article 22. Two main points arise, whether Mr Laramore was "hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience" within article 22(1) and, if he was, whether there was any justification for this under, in particular, article 22(5).
The appellants accept, as did Allen P in her judgment (para 25), that the Constitution and in particular Chapter III "which protects and entrenches fundamental rights and freedoms to which all persons in the state are to be entitled" is "to be given a generous and purposive approach": Attorney General of the Gambia v Momodou Jobe [1984] AC 689, 700. But they submit that the concept of being "hindered", which is used in article 22(1) is carefully delimited.
In this connection, the appellants submit that:
i) Article 22 protects freedom of conscience in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chantelleday v The Cayman Islands
...Affairs by Command of Her Majesty, November 2006, at page 18. 65 Commodore of the Royal Bahamas Defence Force and others v Lara more [2017] UKPC 13 at [14]. 66 [2010] EWCA Civ. 880, at paras 21—23 67 In R v Big M Drug Mort (1985) 1 SCR 295 68 Which guarantees among other rights, equality ......
-
Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and Others
...or not to practise a religion” (para 34). 51 The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council took the same view in Commodore of the Royal Bahamas Defence Force v Laramore [2017] UKPC 13; [2017] 1 WLR 2752. The Board held that a Muslim petty officer had been hindered in the exercise of his con......
-
Ms Seyi Omooba v (1) Michael Garrett Associates Ltd (ta Global Artists) (2) Leicester Theatre Ltd
...hold a religious belief or practice or not to practice a religion (Burscarini; Commodore of the Royal Bahamas Defence Force v Laramore [2017] 1 WLR 2752) and the freedom not to express (RT (Zimbabwe)). Pursuant to section 3 HRA 1998, the ET was bound to construe the EqA so as to accord with......
-
Attorney General for Bermuda v Roderick Ferguson and Others
...35 On freedom of conscience, the Chief Justice cited the Board's judgment in Commodore of the Royal Bahamas Defence Force v Laramore [2017] UKPC 13; [2017] 1 WLR 2752 (“ Laramore”), which the Board will have to consider later in this judgment. The Chief Justice found that the respondents ......