Hughes and Rodriquez v Registrar of Births Death and Marriages and The attorney general

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Judge: Ramdhani, J.
• Judgment Date: 21 July 2017
• Neutral Citation: AI 2017 HC 3
• Court: High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)
• Date: 21 July 2017
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. AXAHCV 2017/0028

IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(CIVIL) A.D. 2017

Ramdhani, J.

CLAIM NO. AXAHCV 2017/0028

In the matter of the Constitution of Anguilla, Anguilla Constitution Order 1982

and

In the matter of the Marriage Act, Chapter M40 of the Revised Statutes of Anguilla

And

In the mater of the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Act, Chapter R35 of the Revised Statutes of Anguilla

and

In the matter Part 56 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Between:

[1] Chandra Hughes

[2] Jose Garcia Rodriquez

Claimants

and

[1] Registrar of Births Death and Marriages

[2] The Attorney General

Defendants

Appearances

Ms. Lauri Smikle instructed by Alex Richardson & Associates for the Claimants

Mr. John McKendrick Q.C. Attorney General for the Defendants

Judicial Review - Administrative claim challenging decision of Registrar to Marriages to strike out a marriage from the Register on the basis that it was void — Claim including claim for declarations — Leave only granted to pursue challenge to the decision — Part 56 of CPR 2000 allowing relief in the nature of declarations to be joined on claim without leave.

Family Law — Marriage — Marriage struck off Register because person conducting marriage ceremony not an authorized marriage officer — Whether decision bad in law and in excess of the jurisdiction of the Registrar — Registrar failing to give due regard to section 64(b) of the Marriage Act — Section 64(b) operating to save the validity of a marriage if parties to a marriage do not ‘wilfully and knowingly’ consent to, or acquiesce in being married by an unauthorized person once the marriage has otherwise complied with the Act and is in all essentials a marriage — Where a marriage has been registered and a question arises as to whether it may have been solemnized by an unauthorized person, the Registrar having regard to section 64(b), ought to give the parties to the marriage, notice of her intention to strike the marriage off the Register — Where the issue not resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the Registrar and parties, the Registrar ought to seek an order from the Court on the question of the validity of the marriage — Where questions of compliance arise before a marriage is registered, the Registrar retains the good faith discretion, after proper investigation, to refuse to register a marriage in substantial breach with the Act.

Family Law — Marriage — Question as to whether the marriage may have been solemnized outside of the statutory hours within which marriages are to be performed — No positive evidence that this was so — Marriage not voided on such unproven allegation.

Obiter — The fact that a marriage may have occurred outside the statutory prescribed hours is not sufficient to invalidate or void an otherwise valid marriage.

DECISION

Ramdhani, J.

1 (Ag.) This is a Fixed Date Claim filed by the claimants for judicial review of a decision of the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages to strike out from the Marriage Register the marriage of the claimants. A number of declarations are also sought on the Claim. This matter was heard on the 16th June 2017 and the substantive relief being sought by the claimants is hereby granted in the terms set out in this judgment for the following reasons.

The Parties

2 The claimants are Chandra Hughes and Jose Garcia Rodriquez who claim that they followed all the formalities required of them by the Registrar of Marriages and solemnized a marriage between themselves on the 24th July 2014, which marriage was then registered but later struck from the Register by the Registrar of Marriages.

3 The Registrar of Births, Death and Marriages is that statutory authority with responsibility for the registration of all births, deaths and marriages in Anguilla. Her authority is derived from the Marriage Act. It is her decision to strike the claimants' marriage from the Register that grounds the main claim in these proceedings.

4 The Attorney General, the legal representative of the Crown is joined to the proceedings in relation to the declarations, including constitutional relief which are being sought.

The Fixed Date Claim

5 By a Fixed Date Claim filed on the 2 of May 2017, the claimants are seeking the following relief, namely:

1

An order to quash the decision of the Registrar to strike out the marriage of the Applicants on the 24 July 2014 from the Registry of Marriages. 2. A Declaration pursuant to the Marriage Act, Chapter M40 of the Revised Statutes of Anguilla, that the marriage celebrated between the Applicants on the 24 July 2014 was a valid marriage at its inception. 3. A Declaration that the Applicants did not, pursuant to section 64(b) of the Marriage Act C. M40 knowingly and wilfully consent to, or acquiesce in the solemnization or celebration of their marriage by a person not being a marriage officer and that the marriage not be null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever. 4. A Declaration that the Registrar acted in excess of her powers and disproportionately under the provisions of the Marriage Act, by striking out the marriage between the Applicants. Further and/or in the alternative 5. A Declaration that the Registrar and or her agents at the Court Registry erred and or failed to verify that Pastor Samuel D. Richardson, of Eglesia De Vios de Vendicion Church, Blowing Point Anguilla, was registered to marry the Applicants in a timely manner. 6. A Declaration that the Registrar acted unreasonably when she communicated to Pastor Samuel D. Richardson, by letter dated 29 July 2016, two (2) years after the Applicants celebrated and registered their marriage, and indicated that the said Pastor was not ‘appropriately registered’ to perform or officiate the wedding in accordance to the Marriage Act. 7. A Declaration that the Registrar, by virtue of section 1(c) of the Anguilla Constitution Order 1982, SI 1982 No. 334, infringed on the Applicants' right to family life.

The Facts

6 The claim was grounded on a number of matters which affidavits filed by the claimants supported in all material respects. The defendants also filed affidavits but did not dispute the underlying factual matrix in any material way. These will now be set out.

7 Prior to the 24 ^th July 2014, the claimants desirous of being lawfully married visited the Registry and enquired of the requirements for obtaining a marriage licence. The first claimant at that time also enquired whether a ‘Pastor Samuel Richardson’ was licensed to marry individuals. It was confirmed by a Registry officer that Pastor Samuel Richardson was licensed to marry persons.

8 On the 21 ^st July 2014, the claimants completed the necessary documents and filled out in particular a Petition in accordance with section 35(3) of the Marriage Act. The material part of that Petition to the Registrar was as follows:

“The Humble Petition of Jose Smith Garcia Rodriquez Bachelor native of Dominican Republic residing at South Hill and Chandra Corsica Hughes Spinster Native of Anguilla residing at South Hill, Anguilla Respectfully sheweth that your first named Petitioner is the age 27 years and your second named Petitioner is of the age of 37 years.

That Jose Smith Garcia Rodriquez and Chandra Corsica Hughes has/have for the space of 15 days immediately preceding the date of this Petition had his or her/their usual place of Abode within Anguilla. That your Petitioners are desirous of being married without publication of banns or notice or marriage and know of no cause or impediment to prevent the proposed marriage, and therefore pray for the grant to them a special licence whereby any marriage officer shall be authorized to solemnize or celebrate the same. That your petitioners desire the marriage to be solemnized/celebrated MEADS BAY VILLAS BEACH by PASTOR SAMUEL RICHARDSON 1

And your petitioners as it duly bound will ever pray.

[Signed by both]

9 At the time this Petition was being presented the claimants enquired from the Registry whether Pastor Samuel Richardson was an authorized marriage officer. An officer of the Registry confirmed at the time there was a ‘Pastor Samuel Richardson’ who an authorized marriage officer. (A copy of the page from the Register of Marriage Officers was produced in court and it showed that ‘Pastor Samuel Richardson’ of the ‘Awakening Ministries Tabernacle’ had been a registered officer since the 3 ^rd March 1981.) It was undisputed that when the Petition was made, the officer from the Registry consulted this Register of Marriage Officers and responded to the claimants' query. It appeared that it was then on this basis the name of the Pastor which was written in hand on the Petition was approved to perform the marriage. No information was given to the Registry about the Church which Pastor Richardson being presented by the claimants was associated with. There has been no dispute that the claimants presented information which was being requested of them. Even without this information, the Registrar and the staff at the Registry did not doubt that

the Pastor Samuel Richardson being presented was the same Pastor who was named in the Register of authorized officers.

10 The Petition was examined by the Registrar who satisfied herself that all the information and supporting documents were in order. 2 On the 23 ^rd July 2014, the claimants having paid the required $100 in stamps, the Registrar issued to the claimants, a licence under section 36 of the Marriage Act. This licence was in the following terms:

“LICENCE

By the Registrar General of Anguilla

To all whom these presents shall come:

Be it known that JOSE SMITH GARCIA RODRIQUEZ Bachelor of age 27 years, born in the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC residing at South Hill and CHANDRA CORSICA HUGHES Spinster of age 37 years, born in Anguilla residing at South Hill having petitioned me for a license to marry without publication of banns or notice of marriage, and they the...