The third and final day of legal arguments wrapped in an appeal case brought by two gang killers who are fighting to return to Cayman from the UK to serve the remainder of their prison sentences.
In 2016, brothers Osbourne Douglas and Justin Ramoon were imprisoned for 30 and 33 years, respectively, for the 2015 execution-style murder of Jason Powery. The brothers were later transferred to Belmarsh Prison, a maximum-security facility in London.
The court earlier heard that the decision to transfer them from Northward Prison in Cayman had been based on information from prison sources that the two men were planning an armed jail break.
On Monday, Hugh Southey, QC, the attorney who represents the brothers, told the appeal judges that the transfer amounted to a breach of their human rights because the information upon which the decision to order the transfer was based had been redacted from court documents, out of a concern for national security.
Southey said, in order for the courts to verify the information, they would need legislation that would allow for a Closed Material Procedure hearing, but since there is no legislation to facilitate such a hearing, there is no way to ascertain the credibility of the evidence. He told the judges that quashing the transfer order and returning the brothers to Cayman was the best thing to do.
Paul Bowen, QC, who represents the respondents – the governor of the Cayman Islands and the director of prisons – refuted Southey’s assertions.
Bowen urged the judges not to quash the transfer order because the information provided was purposefully limited, out of a concern for national security, and that there were adequate safeguards in place to ensure that the transfer was justified. He told the court that the transfer was reviewed and approved by the UK Chancellor, the UK Minister and Secretary of State, the Cayman Islands governor, the police commissioner, and the prisons director.
Both attorneys told the judges that if they did not feel comfortable ruling on one side outright, there was a third option, which would be to use Section 26 of the Bill of Rights to infer that the court had the power to hold a Closed Material Procedure hearing despite the lack of legislation. The attorneys added that, during that hearing, a judge would be able to review the original documents and come to a decision based on that.
The Court of Appeal judges retired Thursday to consider their verdict.
Related Videos
