Joel Lewis (Appellant) v Clifford Chambers (Respondent) (Jamaica)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0005

Jurisdiction

Jamaica

Parties

Appellant(s)

Joel Lewis

Respondent(s)

Clifford Chambers

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err in refusing to grant leave to the appellant to seek judicial review against the respondent of a decision not to re-enlist the appellant as a constable in the Jamaica Constabulary Force?

Facts

The appellant enlisted with the Jamaica Constabulary Force and served as a constable for 13 years. In June 2018, he was charged with certain offences concerning a stolen motor vehicle. However, in February 2019 he was discharged on all counts after the prosecution offered no further evidence. In June 2020, the appellant applied for re-enlistment as a constable. In November 2020, he was advised that his application for re-enlistment was not recommended to the Commissioner of Police because of the allegations which formed the basis for his charges in June 2018. He responded to this via his attorney-at-law, but in November 2021, he received another letter advising him that the Commissioner of Police reviewed the recommendation and refused his re-enlistment on the same grounds. In July 2022, the appellant had a meeting with the Commissioner of Police. It is common ground that at that meeting, the Commissioner of Police told the appellant that if the 2018 charges were the only charges against the appellant, he did not need to worry. In September 2022, the respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, informed the appellant by letter that the Commissioner of Police had decided that his application for re-enlistment was not approved. The appellant sought judicial review of this communication. Carr J in the Supreme Court of Jamaica refused leave to apply for judicial review. The Court of Appeal upheld this refusal on the grounds that the application had been brought against the wrong party, since it was the Commissioner of Police, not the respondent, who had made the decision not to re-enlist the appellant. The appellant now appeals to His Majesty in Council.