Business as usual may never be the same again at the Customs Department after Chief Justice Abdulai Conteh delivered a significant judgment today. In a detailed 44 page judgment, Conteh found that the Customs Department had violated the constitutional rights of a private citizen on April 10th of this year when it seized 12 computers from the owner of X-tra House, Jack Charles. While one man's constitutional rights have been upheld, the ruling has made a mighty pronouncement on the authority which the Customs Department carries to execute searches and seizures. We start with never before seen footage of the search that set the whole thing off:
Jules Vasquez reporting,
This was the scene in April when customs officers raided the offices of X-tra House Supermarket. On this night, as has been the case many times before, this establishment was singled out by the customs department for violations. On the night of April 10th, on the authority of a standard writ authorising a search for un-customed goods, they were looking for something or anything illegal, and they came up with these computers that were packed up and confiscated. They are computers that owner Jack Charles had paid the fully assessed duty on just one week earlier, when some of these very same officers were on duty. But this time the customs officers said they had to be revalued.
Hon. Dean Barrow
But instead of merely sending him a notice of an additional assessment, they went to his premises with a Writ of Assistance to search for and to sieze the computers as being un-customed goods. Now right away, you don't have to be a lawyer to know something has to be wrong. This man has paid his duties, passed his entry through customs. How can the goods then be un-customed even if customs decided they made a mistake as to the amount of duty. Even if the Writ of Assistance was valid, it only entitled them to search for un-customed goods. The computers, duties having been paid on them, could never be un-customed, therefore the search and seizure had to be illegal.
Jules Vasquez
Barrow took that to the Supreme Court seeking constitutional redress claiming that the Customs Department had overstepped its bounds and not only siezed the computers wrongly, but violated the fundamental rights of a private citizen. That's strong stuff rarely proved in court, but this morning Chief Justice Dr. Abdulai Conteh found that indeed those rights had been violated.
Hon. Dean Barrow
The court, in fact, upheld those arguments, found that the search and seizure were illegal, for both reasons, awarded damages to the applicant, Jack Charles, for the breach of his fundamental rights.
Jules Vasquez
It's as close to a benchmark as it gets because it's only the second time in Belize's history that the court has found the government liable of such a breach. And Conteh found that the customs must pay for violating Jack Charles' rights - 20 thousand dollars in damages.
Hon. Dean Barrow
As far as I can recollect, yes, I may be wrong, but I certainly can't remember any other case of damages being awarded to a citizen for breach of his constitutional rights. This might well be the first. In any event it certainly has to be encouraging and it's not just the fact of the judgment and the fact of the award of the damages. It is what the Chief Justice had to say in the course of his judgment.
Jules Vasquez
And what he said was that DPP Kirk Anderson would be acting in an unbecoming fashion by bringing charges against Charles in July for rice that had been confiscated in April. In fact, those charges were brought on the 2nd of July, but now, Conteh has ruled that the sacks of rice must be returned.
Hon. Dean Barrow
In the written judgment now, the Chief Justice took some time to say that the actions of the Director of Public Prosecution are, this is my word, "frightening." He said that it is a sad day for Belize when the DPP will seek to exact vengeance upon a citizen merely because that citizen has dared to go to court to vindicate his rights under the constitution. What the Chief Justice didn't know at the time he wrote the judgment is that in fact Anderson, the DPP, has charged Jack Charles. The Chief Justice was saying to him to the effect, don't, if you do, it is a sad day for Belize.
Jules Vasquez
It's a thorough vindication and then some for Charles who claims he's been the target of authorities.
Jack Charles
Well I feel happy, I feel vindicated, you know. I am glad, you know, that at least I got the judgment, you know, and at least I can go back to my business. Of course I do suffer some losses, you know, close to $80,000 or $100,000 dollars, you know. But I am glad there is something that you call a law and I did get a judgment, you know. Jules, actually I am not happy, you know, carrying them again and again for the court and so on, you know. But what they are doing, they are taking some illegal moves and so on, you know, they are just going out of the law, you know and that force me to carry them to court and I get the judgment of the law. I mean if you really look at last year, you know, we had some case with customs and they charged me for some oil and so, right. And when I carry the judgment, the ruling from the magistrate to them, they still refused to release my goods. I always believe in the best, you know, I hope, tomorrow is a very good day for me, you know. I feel that they will stop harassing me and so but, you know, let's hope for the best, you know. If they start behaving, that's really good for me.
Jules Vasquez
And while Charles cherishes his victory, the Customs Department now not only has to ponder this loss, it has to look to the wider fact that this same warrant - now thoroughly discredited before the courts - is what is used in almost every single search and seizure action made by the Customs Department. So, this single, simple and harmless, if somewhat spiteful act, on the night of April 10th has led to an undermining of the Customs Department's powers in a fundamental way.
Hon. Dean Barrow
The Writ of Assistance, which customs habitually uses in these cases is itself unconstitutional because that writ is a pre-prepared writ. It's not a writ issued to meet the individual circumstances. Customs, in other words, has a batch of these writs, a stack of these writs and they just whip them out if they decide they want to go to Jules Vasquez's house to search.
Jules Vasquez
Is this now saying that these writs are inappropriate in every case?
Hon. Dean Barrow
Those writs are gone. The Chief Justice said in every case, those writs are bad.
Jules Vasquez
So, everything which is presently now being held, that were seized with those writs, heretofore, are, or should be returned. You can challenge it?
Hon. Dean Barrow
Absolutely, you can challenge it.
When we called the Attorney General this afternoon, he could not say whether the government will appeal the judgment because he was only just reading the judgment.