_{High Court of Belize}

One sees 13 street figures compensated with $372,000 after Judge deemed the Crown’s evidence insufficient to support SOE declaration as constitutional

BELIZE CITY, Wed. May 21, 2025

Two conflicting High Court rulings, on challenges mounted to the July 2020 State of Emergency (SOE) to curb gang-related violence, are headed to the Belize Court of Appeal. The first ruling, issued by Justice Rajiv Goonetilleke on April 30, found that the SOE was justified and valid in law, given the unprecedented spike in shootings that claimed seven lives in just four days and left multiple others injured. On the other hand, Justice Nadine Nabie ruled on May 15 that the Crown did not submit sufficient evidence for her to find that there was a real public emergency to justify an SOE. She therefore ruled that the measure and its 2-month extension by the National Assembly were unconstitutional. As such, she declared that authorities were merely using it as a crime-fighting tool, and that the police’s conduct was arbitrary and high-handed based on “purported gang association or suspected commission of offences.” She ruled that 13 SOE detainees together be awarded $372,000 for damages. They were to receive sums ranging from $12,000 to $25,000 in compensatory damages plus $7,000 each in vindicatory damages. Originally, there were 16 claimants, but three were dismissed during the trial in November 2024.

Justice Nabie determined that the detainees were held by police at the Belize Central Prison without any reasonable grounds for suspicion of their involvement in gang-related activities, and that the State failed to provide judicial oversight in relation to the detainees. Furthermore, she noted that no tribunal was established as constitutionally mandated to review their detention. She thus deemed that their constitutional right not to be unlawfully deprived of their liberty was violated. The men were detained for varying periods of 17 to 88 days between July 6, 2020 and October 5, 2020, and were released without being charged. Since inquiries were not conducted prior to the men’s detention, Justice Nabie also held that their right to protection of the law, premised on “fundamental justice and Rule of Law”, was violated. The government has been ordered to pay the claimants’ costs. They were represented by Leeroy Banner, while the government was represented by Alea Gomez.

In her assessment of whether the circumstances at the time were likely to lead to the endangerment of public safety under Section 18 of the Constitution, Justice Nabie remarked that the Crown failed to provide proper and sufficient evidence to substantiate the need for the SOE, a measure with far-reaching effects, including the suspension of citizens’ rights. Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Bartholomew Jones was the only witness for the Crown, and provided two affidavits. The reasons for the SOE were set out in “a mere four paragraphs,” said the Judge. She wrote, “In reviewing the DCP’s evidence, the use of the words, ‘sporadic’ increase in violent crimes, and ‘subtle’ resurgence by ‘some’ gang members, do not suggest to me that the criminal activity was of the gravity that could not be dealt with by the ordinary law.” She also noted that no evidence was submitted to show that the resurging crime after the relaxation of COVID-19 measures was higher than what was seen during pre-pandemic times. While Justice Nabie agreed that the decision to declare an SOE is a political one left up to the Executive (the government), she noted that Jones, as a public officer, did not provide any insight about the decision-making of the political directorate, and neither did a government official testify to prove that increasing gang violence threatened the state’s ability to provide for the safety of its citizens. Justice Nabie said that without sufficient evidence, the court could not speculate on what was happening in the Southside of Belize City to warrant the SOE at the time.

Justice Nabie concluded the point by stating, “The use of the public emergency laws must be reserved for more extreme and extraordinary conditions and ought not to be used as a crime- fighting tool unless the criminal activities are of such a nature to cause civil disorder which prevents the government from ensuring the safety of the citizenry.” As to the men’s arrests, she likewise found that the Crown did not submit evidence to substantiate their ground of reasonable suspicion that the claimants acted, were acting or were likely to act in a manner prejudicial to public safety. No arresting officer testified, and DCP Jones—who was not the investigating officer — did not submit as evidence information he had received from the arresting officers about the claimants. This left the court with a lack of evidence to establish reasonable grounds of suspicion.

Notably, there were several other orders requested by the claimants (SOE detainees) which were not supported by Justice Nabie. For instance, they sought a declaration that their right to equal protection of the law was violated, as they were discriminated against; however, Justice Nabie ruled that they had not proven that this occurred based on “race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed or sex.” Similarly, she did not rule that they were subjected to inhumane treatment or degrading punishment or torture. She frowned upon the fact that the affidavits of all claimants as to the conditions in prison were identical, and added that the details seemed exaggerated.

In court, some of the claimants testified that, apart from receiving two documents outlining their “reason for detention” and a “detention order,” they were questioned, but not in the presence of a Justice of the Peace, and one shared that he was sent straight to prison after being picked up.

The matters presided over by Justice Goonetilleke were two separate claims brought in December 2023 by 2 and 3 claimants, respectively. All five were also represented by attorney Banner. The matters went to trial in July of 2024. The first of the two claims was in respect of a first SOE in March of 2020 which saw three of the claimants detained for 30 days, while the second claim was in respect of the SOE that started in July that year. Justice Goonetilleke determined that the matters to be addressed were similar and therefore heard them together. He ruled that the multiple murders instilled fear in the residents of the affected area and affirmed that the State has a responsibility to create an “environment in which people can live in safety from violence and in circumstance [sic] where law and order prevail.” Moreover, he also declared that such decisions are executive and political, and noted that there were no accusations of bad faith or improper purpose made against the State over the SOE. He ordered that each party bears its own costs. In these cases, the Government was represented by Jarvis Lou.

In handing down her decision, Justice Nabie noted the preceding decision, but clarified that the ruling was from coordinate jurisdiction and therefore she was not bound by it. Authorities, including Prime Minister John Briceño and former Commissioner of Police Chester Williams, expect clarity to come from the Court of Appeal. The matter may likely go all the way to the Caribbean Court of Justice.

On Friday, May 9, the Supreme Court of Jamaica handed down a ruling declaring multiple SOEs instituted from 2019 to 2023 as unconstitutional and void. That judgment is also set to be appealed.