After a charge of working without a permit was dismissed, an employee returned to Summary Court on Monday for trial on a charge of overstaying.
But Crown Counsel Scott Wilson applied to withdraw that charge also after explaining the situation.
He first referred to the fact that Magistrate Nova Hall had found there was no case to answer for either the employer or employee on the permit charge (Caymanian Compass, 17 January).
Mr. Wilson said that, as a result, he had consulted with the Chief Immigration Officer Mr. Franz Manderson. Since the magistrate had found that Allister Stanley Hayes was not working for Androgroup Elevators, but was per his work permit working for Androgroup Ltd., it would be unfair to continue with the charge of overstaying.
The reason was simple, Mr. Wilson said. The charge of overstaying was brought on the basis that Mr. Hayes was not working for Androgroup Ltd but rather Androgroup Elevator.
He said he had been told there were many other examples of persons who were in a similar situation as Mr. Hayes – they were working under temporary permits and had made application for full work permits.
An amendment to the immigration law in July 2005 allowed temporary permit holders to work during the transitional period between their temporary and the grant of a one-year permit. However, that amendment did not take effect until 9 August 2005.
It had been decided as a matter of policy not to bring charges against people awaiting one-year permits who were affected by the amendment.
Mr. Hayes has been charged with overstaying between 1 August and 6 September 2005.
On behalf of the defendant, Ramon Alberga QC commended the prosecution and Mr. Wilson for the course he had recommended and the time that had been saved.
Mr. Alberga said he would have developed three major submissions on behalf of Mr. Hayes and the magistrate would have had to adjudicate.
The first point was that Mr. Hayes had left the island on 23 July and returned on 1 August. He was admitted by Immigration and received a stamp in his passport giving him permission to remain for a maximum of six months.
He was told to take his passport to Immigration as soon as a decision was reached on his permit application. It could therefore not be said that he landed without permission: his landing and remaining would not be in contravention of any section of the Immigration Law, Mr. Alberga stated.
Other submissions would have pertained to knowledge or intent to commit an offence and the retroactive nature of the legislation.
Related Videos
