A man jailed for human smuggling has failed in a last-minute bid to prevent his removal from the Cayman Islands so he could appear in person at family proceedings involving his young daughter.
In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 27 Feb., Grand Court Justice Marlene Carter dismissed the man’s application seeking an interim injunction to prevent his deportation to the United Kingdom, stating his argument had no legal basis.
The man, 54, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was convicted in September 2024 of multiple offences, including human smuggling, and was sentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment.
He had entered Cayman with his wife and infant daughter in May 2024 on a yacht, with two undocumented Ethiopian men on board. During his trial, the court had heard that the men, who later fled from Cayman with Cuban migrants, had paid US$5,000 to the man and his wife to take them to Honduras.
The man’s wife is also currently in prison, having been sentenced to 25 months in prison.
According the 27 Feb. judgment, family proceedings are currently under way before the Grand Court concerning whether the couple’s daughter should be returned to the UK. A hearing of the family proceedings is scheduled for later this month, the court heard.
Under the Customs and Border Control Act, a non-Caymanian sentenced to more than 12 months’ imprisonment is automatically deemed a prohibited immigrant. The Conditional Release Board in December 2025 approved the man for early release, and a removal order was first issued on 23 Dec.
The court heard that although the man initially indicated an intention to contest his removal, he later consented and assisted authorities in obtaining emergency travel documents, before withdrawing that consent days before his scheduled departure.
On 20 Feb., just one day before he was due to be removed, he filed an urgent application seeking to restrain the director of Customs and Border Control from enforcing the removal order.
During the hearing on 23 Feb., his lawyer Martha Rankine argued that deportation would interfere with his constitutional right to family life, particularly his ability to participate in the ongoing family court proceedings and maintain contact with his daughter, whom he sees once a month. It was also claimed that psychological assessments were pending and that he had medical issues affecting air travel.
Rankine noted that the postponement of his deportation would be temporary, possibly only a matter a weeks, while the proceedings about his daughter were settled.
Crown counsel Heather Walker objected, arguing that the application was legally defective because it was not tied to any underlying claim. She disputed the factual basis of the application, noting that no psychological assessments had been ordered, no court had required the man’s physical presence, and that he could participate in the family court hearings remotely from the UK.
The Crown also highlighted that the man’s alleged medical condition had never previously been disclosed.
In her ruling, Carter agreed with the Crown’s position, stating that the man had failed to issue, or even draft, any originating process identifying what legal or equitable right had been infringed. She also found that the director of Customs and Border Control had no discretion under the law to refrain from declaring the man a prohibited immigrant once the statutory criteria were met.
While acknowledging the seriousness of the family proceedings and the importance of the father’s involvement, Carter concluded there was no evidence that his removal would prevent meaningful participation. “Bare assertions” of a breach of family life rights were insufficient, particularly where electronic participation was available and had been used previously, she noted.
Describing his application as reflecting a “change of heart” rather than a genuine infringement of rights, she dismissed the injunction request. No order was made as to costs.
The man’s removal to the UK is now expected to proceed in accordance with the existing removal order.
Related Videos
