James v Chief Immigration Officer

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: St.Bernard, J.A.,Lewis, C.J.,Cecil Lewis, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 10 March 1972
• Neutral Citation: LC 1972 CA 2
• Docket Number: Magisterial Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1 of 1971
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 10 March 1972

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J., Bernard, J.A., Cecil Lewis, J.A.

Magisterial Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1 of 1971

James

and

Chief Immigration Officer

K. Foster for appellant.

L. Williams for respondent.

Immigration law - Visitor overstaying permission — Whether emigrant a prohibited immigrant.

St.Bernard, J.A.

1 The appellant, a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, arrived in the State on August 28, 1971. He was granted permission by the Immigration Officer to remain for two days as a visitor. On the 30th August, 1971, he returned to the Immigration Office and requested an extension of his stay. This was refused and he was ordered to leave the State by Friday 3rd September, 1971. He remained beyond that time and on the 6th September, 1971 he was served with a notice under section 23 of the Immigration Ordinance Chapter 76 of the Laws of St. Lucia by Etienne Alphonse, an immigration officer, appointed under the said Ordinance. The relevant portion of section 23 as it applies to this case reads: “23. Where an immigration officer decides that an immigrant is a prohibited immigrant he shall give to the immigrant in the prescribed form, notice of his decision and of the grounds thereof and at the same time inform him that he may, if he thinks fit, appeal to a magistrate….”

2 The appellant appealed to a magistrate and the magistrate dismissed his appeal on the 30th September, 1971. He now appeals to this court on three grounds. Grounds one and two which are as follows were argued together: (1) That a violation of section 13 can only be made the substance of a charge under section 36, and (2) That the Chief Immigration Officer proceeded erroneously to commence proceedings under section 23, which in law made no provision for persons “deemed to be a prohibited immigrant.”

3 Counsel submitted that the magistrate had no authority in law to make a finding that the appellant was a prohibited immigrant since the proceedings were erroneously commenced by the immigration officer under section 23 of the Immigration Ordinance. This section he submitted could only be acted on by the immigration officer when the prohibited immigrant falls within one of the categories set out in subsection (1) of section 4 of the Immigration Ordinance. The appellant, he stated, did not fall within any of the categories set out in the said subsection and the immigration officer should have asked the magistrate to make an order under section 13 deeming the appellant a prohibited immigrant. Subsection (1) of section 4 reads: “Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance the immigration into the State by sea or by air of any person being or appearing to be of the classes specified in this subsection is prohibited.”

4 The subsection then sets out a number of specified classes of persons who are prohibited immigrants, for example, idiots, the mentally deficient, persons suffering from a communicable disease, prostitutes, persons living on the proceeds of prostitution etc…. The contention of counsel was that section 23 only applies to persons falling within one of the classes set out in the above subsection as there was a difference between a prohibited immigrant and a person deemed to be a prohibited immigrant under the Ordinance. The Ordinance, he said, clearly envisaged such a distinction as might be seen from the provisions of section 15.

5 Subsection (1) of section 12 of the said Ordinance reads in these terms:

“12(1) An...