Gov’t asks for stay to review court ruling on damages

Government is considering its options after a High Court ruling in which two former wards of the Government Industrial School (GIS) were together awarded more than $200 000 in damages.
On Friday, Minister of Home Affairs and Information Wilfred Abrahams said the Government “has applied for a stay” in relation to former acting High Court Judge Westmin James’ ruling, and is considering its next move in relation to the judgment.
“What is being contemplated now and we are taking advice on is in relation to the damages aspect of it,” Abrahams said during a post Cabinet press conference at Parliament Buildings on Friday where he announced that the Child Protection Bill 2022 will be laid before Parliament soon.
Last Tuesday, James, in his judgment, also ruled that part of Section 14 of the Reformatory and Industrial Act should be removed from the Laws of Barbados because it is unconstitutional.
The two teenage claimants who spent time at the GIS have been released. One of them had been admitted to the Psychiatric Hospital for a short stay.
However, Minister Abrahams, who made it clear that the Government wants to see the back of the wandering law, indicated that the administration does not intend to challenge Westmin’s decision to strike wandering from the law books.
He insisted that the government has treated the issue of wandering with such seriousness, that his ministry gave the green light for wards sent to the GIS for the offence to be granted early release from the institution.
“What I want to make clear is that I have spoken to the AG [Attorney General] and it is not intended at all to touch or contest the part that deals with the unconstitutionality of it. We agree with the judge, we accept that it has to go.
“The fact that our legislation, which was obviously in draft before these cases came up, has done away with wandering, means that we can’t contest it. It is unfair, it is unconstitutional, it should not have happened, it should not have been here as long as it has been.
“We are happy to see it go, so we are not touching that part of it, but there are other considerations that will be taken into account in relation to other aspects of the decision of the judge. We are taking advice on it now as to what happens next,” he said.
(AH)