The Minister of Home Affairs and another v Barbosa
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Kitchin,Lord Sales |
| Judgment Date | 11 November 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] UKPC 41 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Privy Council Appeal No 0048 of 2017 |
| Date | 11 November 2019 |
[2019] UKPC 41
Privy Council
Michaelmas Term
From the Court of Appeal of Bermuda
Lord Reed
Lord Lloyd-Jones
Lord Briggs
Lord Kitchin
Lord Sales
Privy Council Appeal No 0048 of 2017
Appellant
Richard Drabble QC
Peter Sanderson
(Instructed by Simons Muirhead & Burton LLP)
Respondents
James Guthrie QC
Lauren Sadler-Best
(Instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP (London))
Heard on 13 June 2019
Lord Kitchin AND
Sections 11 and 12 of the Constitution of Bermuda (“the Constitution”) confer protection of freedom of movement and protection from discrimination on persons who belong to Bermuda. Section 11(5) deems four categories of persons to belong to Bermuda for the purposes of section 11, and so also for the purposes of section 12. It is common ground that the appellant, Mr Barbosa, does not fall into any of those categories. The central question raised by this appeal is whether Mr Barbosa is nevertheless entitled to a declaration that he belongs to Bermuda for the purposes of sections 11 and 12 on the basis that he belongs to Bermuda at common law and that the Constitution should be construed in a manner which accommodates and reflects this common law position rather than defeats it.
Mr Barbosa was born in Bermuda on 12 February 1976 of non-Bermudian parents. His parents have Portuguese nationality, as does Mr Barbosa. Under section 4 of the British Nationality Act 1948 (“the 1948 Act”), he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by reason of his birth in Bermuda. On 1 January 1983 and by operation of section 23(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981 (“the 1981 Act”), he became a British Dependent Territories citizen. On 26 February 2002 and by operation of section 2 of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, British Dependent Territories citizenship was renamed British Overseas Territories citizenship and so Mr Barbosa became a British Overseas Territories citizen.
In 1992 Mr Barbosa, who was then 16 years old, moved to the Azores with his parents. He returned to Bermuda in around 2003, obtained a work permit and has lived there ever since. In May 2007 he married Christine Barbosa. She was born in the Philippines.
On 25 October 2013 Mr Barbosa was granted indefinite leave to remain in Bermuda. However, he was told that he was unable to apply for Bermudian status. Mrs Barbosa, on the other hand, was first granted indefinite leave to remain in Bermuda and then, on 29 October 2014, pursuant to section 18 of the 1981 Act, she was granted a certificate of naturalisation as a British Overseas Territories citizen (as British Dependent Territories citizens had by then become) and from that point was deemed to belong to Bermuda for the purposes of section 11 of the Constitution because she fell within the second category of persons identified in section 11(5).
At the time of the commencement of these proceedings, Mrs Barbosa had a niece in the Philippines whose mother had died. Mr and Mrs Barbosa wished to bring this child to Bermuda and to adopt her. However, they were told they could not adopt her because they were not residents of Bermuda within the meaning of the Adoption of Children Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”).
On 10 August 2015 Mr and Mrs Barbosa began proceedings against the respondents by originating summons. They claimed various declarations of which only one, a declaration sought by Mr Barbosa, is relevant to this appeal. Specifically, he sought a declaration that, as a British Overseas Territories citizen, he belonged to Bermuda for the purposes of section 11 of the Constitution and was therefore entitled to the protection it confers, and so too was a resident of Bermuda for the purposes of the 2006 Act.
The summons came on for hearing before Hellman J in December 2015 and he gave judgment on 4 March 2016 (2015: No 336). He found that Mr Barbosa belonged to Bermuda at common law; that belonging is an important or fundamental common law right; that the Constitution would have to employ clear and unambiguous language to justify the conclusion that it protects the fundamental rights of some but not all such belongers; and that the wording of section 11 of the Constitution is ambiguous. He also found that, in these circumstances, section 11 should be interpreted as extending to and protecting the fundamental rights of all belongers and that Mr Barbosa was entitled to the declaration he sought.
The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal (Scott Baker P, Bell JA and Bernard JA) which allowed the appeal by a judgment dated 25 November 2016 (Civil Appeals Nos 3 & 3A of 2016). The court found, in summary, that the Constitution defines, in section 11, the various categories of persons who belong to Bermuda for the purposes of its provisions and that the protection it confers does not extend to persons who may belong to Bermuda at common law but are not within one of those categories. It is to be noted that the court was clearly concerned by this conclusion. Bernard JA, who gave the lead judgment, thought it an unsatisfactory anomaly; and Scott Baker P observed that it seemed to him to result in an injustice to Mr Barbosa.
Upon this further appeal, Mr Richard Drabble QC, who appears with Mr Peter Sanderson for Mr Barbosa, submits that Mr Barbosa belongs to Bermuda at common law because this is the jurisdiction to which his British Overseas Territories citizenship relates. Mr Drabble continues that belonging is an important and fundamental common law right and, as a result, it would need clear and unambiguous language to justify the conclusion that the protection of section 11 does not extend to persons in the position of Mr Barbosa who acquired British Overseas Territories citizenship by birth in Bermuda. Mr Drabble says no such clear and unambiguous language is to be found in section 11; that the concept of a person who belongs to Bermuda within the meaning of section 11 is wider than the categories of persons referred to in section 11(5); and that section 11(5) should therefore be read as being non-exhaustive so as to preserve Mr Barbosa's common law right.
The essential questions to which this appeal gives rise are therefore:
a) whether there is a common law right to belong to Bermuda which Mr Barbosa enjoys; and
b) whether Mr Barbosa belongs to Bermuda for the purposes of section 11 and so also section 12 of the Constitution despite not falling within any of the categories of persons set out in section 11(5).
The Constitution was brought into existence by the Bermuda Constitution Order of 1968 which was itself made under the Bermuda Constitution Act 1967 of the United Kingdom. Chapter I of the Constitution contains a series of provisions which protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. Section 11 protects a person's freedom of movement. Subsection (1) of section 11 provides:
“(1) Except with his consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of movement, that is to say, the right to move freely throughout Bermuda, the right to reside in any part thereof, the right to enter Bermuda and immunity from expulsion therefrom.”
Section 11(2) qualifies section 11(1) and provides that certain laws shall not be inconsistent with or contravene section 11. They include, by subsection (2)(d), laws which restrict the movement within Bermuda of persons who “do not belong to Bermuda”. This provides:
“(2) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section to the extent that the law in question makes provision —
…
(d) for the imposition of restrictions on the movement or residence within Bermuda of any person who does not belong to Bermuda or the exclusion or expulsion therefrom of any such person;”
Section 11(5) deems four categories of persons to belong to Bermuda for the purposes of section 11. It provides:
“(5) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to belong to Bermuda if that person —
(a) possesses Bermudian status;
(b) is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of the grant by the Governor of a certificate of naturalisation under the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 [1914 c 17] or the British Nationality Act 1948 [1948 c 56];
(c) is the wife of a person to whom either of the foregoing paragraphs of this subsection applies not living apart from such person under a decree of a court or a deed of separation; or
(d) is under the age of eighteen years and is the child, stepchild or child adopted in a manner recognised by law of a person to whom any of the foregoing paragraphs of this subsection applies.”
The Constitution contains no other explanation of what belonging to Bermuda means or encompasses. By contrast, section 102, the interpretation section, does address Bermudian status. Subsection (3) of that section provides:
“(3) For the purposes of this Constitution, a person shall be deemed to possess Bermudian status —
(a) in the case of a person who possesses that status on the date on which this Constitution comes into operation under the law then in force in Bermuda, if he has not lost that status under that law or any later law amending or replacing that law that is not less favourable to him; and
(b) in the case of a person who acquires that status at any date after this Constitution comes into operation, if he has not lost that status under the law in force at the date he acquired it or any later law amending or replacing that law that is not less favourable to him.”
The acquisition and enjoyment of Bermudian status is dealt with further in Part III of the Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act 1956 (“the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Attorney-General v Casshonya Pasha Rolle
...Defence Force and others v. Gregory Laramore SCCivAppeal No. 145 of 2013 mentioned The Minister of Home Affairs and anor v. Barbosa [2019] UKPC 41 applied Hunter, et al v Southam Inc. [1984] 2 SCR 145 considered K v Minister of Foreign Affairs & Others [2007] 2 BHS No.12 considered Panjana......
-
Attorney General v Shannon Tyreck Rolle and 4 others
...with an open mind.” (at p 329B-F) 30 The guidance provided in Fisher was affirmed by the Board in Barbosa v Minister of Home Affairs [2019] UKPC 41; [2020] 1 WLR 169, per Lord Kitchin and Lord Sales at para The approach of the Court of Appeal 31 It is necessary to address at the outset th......
-
The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Vijay Maharaj
...Calypso Music.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2nd Edn. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/soca> Accessed 21 Jan. 2021. 97 Ministry of Home Affairs v Barbosa [2019] UKPC 41 at paragraph 98 Mr. Maharaj's submitted in essence that the general principle under the reception of law doctrin......
-
The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Dianne Jhamilly Hadeed
...unique and in a class of its own. It must be given a wide and generous construction. See Minister of Home Affairs and Anor. v. Barbosa [2019] UKPC 41 at paragraph 45 as follows: “The Board … is conscious of the guidance given by the Board in Minister of Home Affairs v Fisher [1980] AC 319.......