Joseph Brice (Appellant) v Attorney General of Anguilla (Respondent) (Anguilla)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0029

Jurisdiction

Anguilla

Parties

Appellant(s)

Joseph Brice

Respondent(s)

The Attorney General of Anguilla

Issue

What are the proper limits of the abuse-of-process doctrine in proceedings brought under section 16 of the Anguilla Constitution Order 1982 (“the Constitution”) and the legal framework governing unlawful arrest in Anguilla? In particular, (i) did the Court of Appeal impermissibly subvert the ‘Ramanoop test’ by effectively treating the mere existence of remedies at common law as an automatic bar to constitutional relief?; (ii) what is the applicable law in relation to unlawful arrests, and is PACE extended to Anguilla by virtue of section 47 of the Anguilla Criminal Procedure Act?; and (iii) was it procedurally fair to permit the abuse of process objection to be raised and determined at the remittal stage?

Facts

This case concerns the arrests and subsequent detention of the Appellant on 7 January 2009 and 18 September 2009 by the Royal Anguilla Police Force. On 3 October 2014, the appellant filed an originating motion in the High Court alleging that his arrests and detention were unlawful due to want of compliance with common law and statutory procedures. The Appellant sought various reliefs, including, inter alia: (i) interim relief in the form of a stay of the trial and re-trial of his indictment pending the determination of the motion; (ii) declaratory relief under the Constitution that his arrests were unlawful for want of necessity; (iii) declaratory relief that his constitutional rights were infringed; (iv) an order that the indictments be quashed; and (v) compensation for breach of said rights. The motion was summarily dismissed by the High Court. On appeal, the Court of Appeal determined that there was no hearing of the claim for relief under the Constitution on its merits and remitted the matter to the High Court for hearing. In a judgment dated 2nd June 2022, the High Court dismissed the motion, on the basis that the UK Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”), which had formed the gravamen of the claim, was not applicable in Anguilla. The Appellant challenged this decision by way of appeal to the Court of Appeal. In its judgment delivered on 18 September 2025, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion as an abuse of process. By a notice of motion on 9 October 2025, the Appellant sought conditional leave, from the Court of Appeal, to appeal its judgment to His Majesty in Council. On 12 February 2026, the Court of Appeal refused the motion for conditional leave to appeal. The Appellant now seeks special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council.