John Wayne Scantlebury Intended Appellant/Applicant v Attorney General First Respondent Clyde Nicholls Second Respondent

CourtCaribbean Court of Justice (Appellate Jurisdiction)
Docket NumberCCJ Application No AL 11 of 2010
JudgeThe Honourable Justices Nelson, Saunders, Wit, Hayton, Anderson, The Honourable Mr Justice Adrian Saunders
Judgment Date17 Feb 2011
JurisdictionCaribbean States
Neutral Citation[2011] CCJ 3 AJ

[2011] CCJ 3 (AJ)

IN THE CARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

Appellate Jurisdiction

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BARBADOS

Before

The Honourables:

Mr Justice Nelson

Mr Justice Saunders

Mr Justice Wit

Mr Justice Hayton

Mr Justice Anderson

CCJ Application No AL 11 of 2010

BB Civil Appeal No 18 of 2007

Between
John Wayne Scantlebury
Intended Appellant/Applicant
and
The Attorney General
First Respondent
Clyde Nicholls
Second Respondent
Appearances

Mr Hal Gollop for the Intended Appellant/Applicant

Mr Leslie Haynes QC with Ms Donna Brathwaite and Mr McWatt for the First Respondent

Ms Roslind Jordan for the Second Respondent

JUDGMENT of The Honourable Justices Nelson, Saunders, Wit, HaytonandAndersonDelivered byThe Honourable Mr Justice Adrian Saunderson the 17 th day of February, 2011

1

The applications of John Wayne Scantlebury (“the Applicant”) for a) an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal to this Court, b) special leave to appeal and c) leave to appeal to this Court as a poor person, were heard by us via audio conference on 28 th January, 2011. These applications were heard simultaneously with identical applications of Sean Gaskin and Frederick Christopher Hawkesworth. All three men had been arrested in May, 2004 in connection with extradition proceedings initiated by the Government of the United States of America.

2

The underlying issues giving rise to the litigation before this Court, the course taken by that litigation and the submissions advanced by each of the men to this Court were in all instances the same. We dismissed each of their applications immediately after receiving the oral submissions of counsel. We undertook then to give in due course written reasons for our decision. In light of the reasons we have given in the case of Sean Gaskin 1 it is unnecessary for us to go over the same ground in this judgment. It suffices to say that the reasoning we applied in the case of Gaskin is also applicable in every material respect to the Applicant and in all the circumstances we had no choice but to dismiss this application and to order costs to the Respondents.

The Hon. Mr. Justice Rolston Nelson

The Hon. Mr. Justice A. Saunders

The Hon. Mr. Justice Wit

The Hon. Mr. Justice D. Hayton

The Hon. Mr. Justice W. Anderson

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Weel v the Attorney General and the Dental Council
    • Caribbean Community
    • Caribbean Court of Justice
    • 22 January 2013
    ...also held that the applicant's attempted analogy utilising a trilogy of earlier decisions of the Court, that of Scantlebury v. A.G. [2011] CCJ 3 (AJ); (2011) 77 W.I.R. 57, Hawkesworth v. A.G [2011] CCJ 2 (AJ); (2011) 77 W.I.R. 57. and Gaskin v. A.G. [2011] CCJ 1 (AJ); (2011) 77 W.I.R. 57......
  • Freddy Oystein Weel Applicant v Attorney General of Barbados 1st Respondent The Dental Council 2nd Respondent
    • Caribbean Community
    • Caribbean Court of Justice (Appellate Jurisdiction)
    • 22 January 2014
    ...post-rescission application for special leave with costs to be assessed, if not agreed, and paid to the First and Second Respondents. 1 [2011] CCJ 3 (AJ) ; (2011) 77 WIR 57 2 [2011] CCJ 2 (AJ) ; (2011) 77 WIR 57 3 [2011 CCJ 1 (AJ) ; (2011) 77 WIR 57 [2014] CCJ 1 (AJ) IN THE CARIBBEAN COURT ......