Attorney-at-Law David S. Brandt is representing recently released prisoner, Matilda Horsford, accusing The Governor, the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Police as Respondents, for allegedly violating her constitutional rights.
The lawyer said that the Governor made an order “under section 7, 1(d), of the Montserrat Constitution and under that section he has no power to attach any conditions to her release…”
As a result Brandt has applied to the Court for an Order for Leave for Judicial Review of actions of decisions by the Respondents.
Ms. Matilda Horsford was convicted in the High Court and sentenced to four years. She reportedly has been ill while in prison and was released, but on conditions Brandt says he is “ applying to the court to have those conditions excised.”
In the Notice of Application it states that “the conditions attached to an Order of Remission dated 14 April 2011…that the Applicant leaves Montserrat immediately upon her release andnot return to Montserrat for at least one year from the date of her release”
The lawyer stated specifically that the Governor’s decision to attach conditions to the remission of part of the Applicant’s sentence is ultra vires section 7(i)(d) of the Constitution of Montserrat on the basis that the Governor has no power under the section to attach conditions to the remission of a prisoner’s sentence.
2. As a consequence of 1 above the actions of the servants or agents of the 2nd and 3rd respondents on the 14th day of April 2011 constituted a procedural impropriety, were unconstitutional, illegal and amounted to false imprisonment.
3. The removal of the Applicant by the Police from Montserrat was unconstitutional, and or illegal and amounted to procedural impropriety.
The relief sought by the Applicant is: (1) A declaration that conditions imposed under 1 above were ultra vires and as such null and void.
(2) A declaration that actions of Police in meeting the Applicant at Her Majesty’s Prison gate, taking her to the Brades police headquarters and taking other actions including seizing her passport, putting her on an aircraft bound to Antigua under police escort, putting her on an aircraft bound to Antigua, and Immigration Officers in Antigua kept her under their control and then escorted her to a LIAT plane to Dominica all amounted to imprisonment;
(3) A Declaration that the removal of the Applicant from Montserrat was illegal and/or unconstitutional;
(4) A Declaration that as a result of (1), (2) and (3) above the Applicant is entitled to damages including an element of aggravated and/or exemplary damages; and
(5) An order that such damages be assessed by a Judge and paid by the Respondents to the Applicant.
In an Affidavit in support of the Application, Ms Horsford states from among 28 clauses, that while in prison, “I developed an ailment which I was informed could not be treated in Montserrat.”
She said she was told by the Chief Medical officer she should travel to Barbados where she “could be reviewed by a specialist…”
That she has a son who was staying with friends in Montserrat, that when she was released, “I only had my dress I was wearing…” that she asked among other things to see her child and was denied.
That “the actions of the officers of the Montserrat Royal Police Force (RMPF) in escorting the Applicant against her will to the Police Headquarters, detaining her in a closed room, taking her to the airport under police escort, putting her on an airplane bound for Antigua whilst under the control of a Police Officer, delivering her up to Immigration Officers in Antigua to be put on a plane to Dominica, searching her personal effects in Montserrat.
That she was questioned by Dominican Immigration Officer as to why she was deported, her travel documents handed to her eventually. “I was released from Montserrat without even a cent,” she stated in her affidavit.
