In a written ruling delivered by the Grand Court on May 30, 2023, the Court refused an application by Samir Bandali, who sought leave to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Royal Cayman Islands Police Service (RCIPS) not to vary his bail conditions to allow him to travel while a fatal traffic accident investigation was ongoing.

According to the ruling, the background of the matter is that, on March 8, 2023, Mr Bandali “was arrested on suspicion of causing death by careless driving and was later released on bail.”  

It was also alleged that Mr Bandali left the scene of the accident.

In the circumstances, a condition was attached to the bail order for the RCIPS to retain Mr Bandali’s passport, thereby preventing him from traveling overseas while the investigation was ongoing.

However, Mr Bandali sought to vary the travel prohibition so that he could go to Canada to see his family.

Mr Bandali explained:

On 26 April 2023 and 22 May 2023, I wrote to the RCIPS seeking the temporary variation of my bail order. I produce said email correspondence as exhibit BB/2.

Specifically, on 26 April 2023 I wrote to the RCIPS requesting the return of my passport to allow me to travel overseas to Vancouver, Canada to see my grandmother who was hospitalized with a stroke. No substantive response was received.

Mr Bandali added: “On 22 May 2023, two further emails were sent to RCIPS seeking the return of my passport for the purposes of travelling overseas. An offer of a CI$5,000 cash bond and a Caymanian surety were made for the period in which the bail order was to be varied.”

Mr Bandali continued:

Three grounds supporting the temporary variation of my bail order to allow for overseas travel were outlined in said emails of 22 May 2023.

Namely:

(i) that the health condition of my grandmother continues to deteriorate, and I wish to see her;

(ii) that my father’s health has also significantly deteriorated following heart surgery and I wish to see him; and

(iii) that I have a number of important fundraising meetings to arrange with investors who are in Miami between the 24 and 27 May 2023.

While technology has certainly improved remote communications, face-to-face interactions offer unique benefits that can contribute tremendously to success as a fundraising and growth specialist. Having face-to-face meetings with prospective investors is considered vital to the operation and sustainability of my business.

The RCIPS refused Mr Bandali’s request citing the serious nature of the allegation against Mr Bandali and that the investigation is still ongoing.

After analysing Mr Bandali’s application and the position of the RCIPS, the Hon. Justice Marlene I. Carter (Actg.) said:

The Applicant in this case has not submitted that the Respondent took into account irrelevant factors or failed to consider relevant factors.

The Applicant submitted that the Respondent appeared not to give proper consideration to whether the refusal to release the passport for a temporary period was necessary in order to secure the attendance of the Applicant.

It does not appear to this Court that this factor was not properly considered.

Instead, it appears to be the factor that was upmost in the mind of the Respondent, concerned as it was that someone who had been arrested on suspicion of a serious offence would take the variation as an opportunity to remain overseas and not surrender to the court’s jurisdiction.

This ground of review fails.

The Hon. Justice Marlene I. Carter (Actg.) continued:

The second ground pursued by the Applicant was the failure of the Respondent to give proper consideration to alternative securities offered in support of the bail variation.

The Applicant contended that this caused the decision to lack detail and justification.

In email correspondence exhibited before the court and attached to the application, the Respondent clearly had this issue of alternative sureties in mind in its consideration of the request to vary bail.

The email reply from Supt Parchment to the Applicant’s attorney on the 22 May 2023 in answer to the proposal of the surety and cash bond was as follows: “The matter of Death is relevant, with a Caymanian Surety in the sum of CI$5000.00 is no guarantee that your client will return.” These matters were relevant and were considered by the decision maker.

This ground of review also fails.

The Hon. Justice Marlene I. Carter (Actg.) concluded:

Given the nature of the matter under consideration, the lack of ties of the Applicant to the island, and the nature and amount of the surety and cash bond that was offered, I do not find that the decision to refuse a variation to the sole condition of bail was disproportionate in all the circumstances.