Author: MJM Limited

The recent sitting of Senate has seen significant legislative amendments introduced. One amendment in particular that has caused great discussion is that of the property rights now afforded to Permanent Residence Certificate Holders (“PRC Holders”). For clarification, a PRC holder is one who has obtained a Permanent Resident’s Certificate by the Minister under section 31A or 31B under the Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act 1956 (the “Act”).

On 22 December 2014, counsel for the Corporation of Hamilton (the “Corporation”) initiated proceedings to challenge the constitutionality of certain amended sections of the Municipalities Act 1923 (the “Act”) (the “Proceedings”). On 26 January 2015, the Minister of Home Affairs (the “Minister”) exercised his right under section 7B(6) of the Act and provided notice to the Corporation that he intended to assume temporary stewardship of it (the “Stewardship”).

The 2014 matter involving the Bermuda Environmental Sustainability Task Force (“BEST”) and the Minister of Home Affairs [2014] SC (Bda) 73 App (18 September 2014) raised interesting legal points as it relates to environment and planning law. The substantive matter is discussed in a further article by my colleague Jessica Kemmenoe in another post.

Cell phoneIn December 2012, I wrote an article on the case of Farnworth v R [2012] Bda LR 44 (151 KB PDF). This particular case provided guidance on the definition of a hand-held device which was in use while driving. Furthermore, it illustrated that the definition of ‘use’ with regards to a hand-held device was quite wide. In Bermuda, the law that guides the use of hand-held devices while driving is regulation 44 of the Motor Car (Construction, Equipment and Use) Regulations 1952 (the “Regulation”). This Regulation has once again come under judicial analysis in the recent case of Lincoln Raynor-Saldana v The Queen [2014] SC (Bda) 58 App (262 KB PDF). This particular case was an appeal from the Magistrate’s Court of Bermuda (Criminal Division) wherein Mr. Raynor-Saldana (the “Appellant”) was convicted for using a hand-held cell phone, namely an iPhone. Mr. Raynor-Saldana was fined $400 and given six (6) demerit points.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the “Board”) is the highest court of appeal for cases from Bermuda to be heard. When a case has reached the Privy Council, the issues to be considered by the Board are typically on points of law. On 8 October 2013, the Board handed down a judgment which will invariably affect all sentences which relate to murder in Bermuda: Selassie (Appellant) and Pearman (Appellant) v The Queen (Respondent) [2013] UK PC 29 (77 KB PDF).