Michael J. Prest (Appellant) v Magistrate District “C” and 2 others (Respondents) (Saint Christopher and Nevis)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0045

Jurisdiction

St Christopher and Nevis

Parties

Appellant(s)

Michael Prest

Respondent(s)

Director of Public Prosecutions

Randolph Diamond

Magistrate of District "C"

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that it had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal because the appeal was a “criminal cause or matter” as prohibited by section 33(3)(a) of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Saint Christopher and Nevis) Cap 3.11 (“the Act”)? Were the appellant’s constitutional rights breached by virtue of the application of that provision? Did the Court of Appeal err in awarding costs contrary to Part 56.11(6) of the Civil Procedure Rules?

Facts

On 21 July 2021, having received evidence on oath from Corporal Randolph Diamond (“Cpl Diamond”), the Magistrate of District “C” (“the Magistrate”) issued two warrants for the arrest of the Appellant (“Mr Prest”) in connection to alleged contraventions of the Larceny Act. On 27 August 2021, Mr Prest applied for leave to make a claim for judicial review and sought orders quashing the Magistrate’s decisions to issue the warrants. Mr Prest also sought an interim order for a stay of execution of the two arrest warrants and an order for an interim injunction restraining any publication of the existence of the arrest warrants pending the determination by the court of the application for judicial review. Initially, the Judge granted Mr Prest leave to apply for judicial review. Moreover, the Judge granted the interim reliefs sought and ordered that execution of the arrest warrants be stayed pending the hearing of the judicial review claim. Mr Prest subsequently filed his fixed date claim for judicial review. However, the Respondents made applications to set aside the order granting leave to bring a claim for judicial review. Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Judge set aside the order granting leave to bring a claim for judicial review and the interim orders and struck out Mr Prest’s fixed date claim for judicial review. Mr Prest appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (“CA”). After the hearing, the CA raised the issue of whether it had jurisdiction to determine the appeal in accordance with section 33(3)(a) of the Act, which states: “No appeal shall lie under this section…from any order in any criminal cause or matter.” The CA ordered the parties to file further written submissions addressing this issue. In its judgment dated 16 April 2024, the CA held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal because it was an appeal “in a criminal cause or matter” and thus fell within the ambit of section 33(3)(a). Additionally, the CA found that if it had jurisdiction, it would have dismissed the appeal. Mr Prest now seeks permission to appeal to His Majesty in Council.

Date of issue

27 May 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top