Immigration officer seeking to have interdiction order set aside by Court of Appeal

Temporary immigration officer Kenton Senior, whose application for leave to go to the Judicial Review Court to quash his interdiction order was refused by the Supreme Court, has taken the matter to the Court of Appeal.

Senior, who has been off the job since July 2022, had brought a claim against respondent Joan Guy-Walker, Director of Human Resources at Passport, Immigration and Citizenship Agency (PICA).

He contends that under the Proclamation Rules and Regulations, the delegation of functions (Public Service) Order 2007, only the Chief Executive Office of PICA is empowered by virtue of the said proclamation to place him on interdiction.

Justice Sonya Wint-Blair, in handing down her decision last month, agreed with attorneys for the respondent that the application was not filed within the time limit and therefore the delay operated as a bar to the orders sought by the applicant, Senior.

Senior said he was given no reason for the interdiction and was placed on three quarters pay to await the proceedings against him.

The respondent denied that the CEO delegated the power to place Senior on interdiction. She said that at all times she acted at the direction of and with the approval of the CEO after his consideration on the issue.

Attorney-at-law Hugh Wildman, who represents Senior, had argued that there was no provision in the delegations of functions order which allowed for the CEO to sub-delegate that authority to any other person.

He said the delegated powers could only be exercised by the CEO.

Wildman submitted that in the letters dated July 26 and 27, 2022, the respondent purported to sign and act for the CEO.

King's Counsel Carlene Larmond and attorney-at-law Giselle Campbell, who were instructed by Patterson Mair Hamilton, had argued that there was a factual error in the evidence presented by Senior. They pointed out that the charges were not preferred on July 20, 2023 but rather on July 12, 2023, informing him of the charges.

The attorneys said the application filed on December 23 last year was out of time and there was no application to extend the time.

It was also submitted that timeline was important, as the applicant had not fully disclosed to the court all that transpired and said further that July 27, 2022 was when grounds for judicial review first arose.

“The strength and quality of the evidence required to prove a claim on a balance of probabilities is found wanting. The decision to prefer disciplinary charges after interdicting the applicant had not been shown by law or evidence to be a continuing act,” the judge ruled.

Justice Wint-Blair said to grant the application in the circumstances would, in her view, be inimical to good administration. She said it was in the interest of good administration for matters to be dealt with expeditiously and fairly.

Senior had contended in court documents that he received a letter on July 12, 2023 which referred to charges against him involving alleged incidents at PICA and a charge of alleged negligence. It was alleged that he acted in a manner that brought the government or the public service into disrepute.

He denied any wrongdoing and described the charges and interdiction as acts of illegality.

Follow The Gleaner on X and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com.