Connect with us

News

NEW LAW: CONTEMPT OF COURT ON COURT REPORTING

Published

on

Turks and Caicos, December 3, 2024

 

CONTEMPT OF COURT RULES 2024 

(Legal Notice 61 of 2024) MADE by the Chief Justice under section 4 of the Chief Justice (Responsibilities) Ordinance, with the approval of the President of the Court of Appeal.

These Rules may be cited as the Contempt of Court Rules 2024 and shall come into operation on 2 December 2024.

In these Rules— “contempt of Court” means any conduct, whether committed in the face of the Court or not, that substantially obstructs or interferes or prejudices, tends to substantially obstruct or interfere or prejudice, the administration of justice in any proceeding pending before the Court, or brings the administration of justice into disrepute; “Court” means the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court; “publication” includes any speech, writing, broadcast, or other communication in whatever form which is addressed to the public at large or to any section of the public; and “publish” means to make available to the public or any section of the public, any information whether orally, by print or electronic means or otherwise.

Outline of contempt of Court – The following shall constitute contempt of Court— 

(a) disobedience of court orders;

(b) interference with Court Proceedings and unauthorised recording; and

(c) prejudicial publications.

Disobedience of court orders – It shall be a contempt of Court— 

(a) to willfully disobey or disregard, any judgment, decree, direction or order of a Court; or

(b) to willfully breach an undertaking given to a Court. Interference with Court proceedings and unauthorised recording

It shall be a contempt of Court— 

(a) to use in Court, or bring into Court for use, any tape recorder or other instrument for recording sound and or images, except with the leave of the Court;

(b) to publish a recording of legal proceedings made by means of any such instrument, or any recording derived directly or indirectly from it, by playing it in the hearing and sight of the public or any section of the public, or to dispose of it or any recording so derived, with a view to such publication;

(c) to use any such recording in contravention of any conditions of leave granted under paragraph (a); or

(d) to obtain or attempt to obtain or disclose any statement made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of the jury in the course of their deliberations in any criminal proceedings.

Prejudicial publications 6 – It shall be a contempt of Court— 

(a) to publish any matter which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded, affected, or prejudiced; or

(b) to publish any matter to the public at large or any section of the public that may interfere or tend to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of the intent to do so, save where at the time of such publication such a person did not know, or did not have any reasonable grounds for suspecting that the relevant proceedings were pending before the Court.

(2) A person shall not be guilty of or punishable for contempt of Court for the distribution of a publication which would otherwise be contempt of court, if at the time of distribution, he did not know, or did not have any reasonable grounds for suspecting that the publication contained, or was likely to contain any matter which amounts to contempt of Court.

(3) A person is not guilty of contempt of Court if he distributes a publication containing any matter pending before the Court, if at the time of distribution, having taken all reasonable care, he does not know that it contains such matter and has no reason to suspect that it is likely to do so.

(4) The burden of proof of any fact tending to establish a defence under subrule (2) or (3) lies upon the person who so asserts, on a balance of the probabilities.

(5) A person is not guilty of contempt of Court for refusing to disclose the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible, unless it be established to the satisfaction of the Court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime.

 Ex facie curiae 

A person shall be guilty of the offence of contempt of court in the face of the court for any of the following—

(a) any insult or disrespect offered to a Court;

(b) the interruption of proceedings pending before a Court;

(c) the use of abusive or threatening language;

(d) the use of violence or threatening the use of violence;

(e) any act calculated to scandalize or lower the authority of a Court;

(f) failure to attend Court without good and sufficient reason; or

(g) any other act or conduct that disrupts the due course of any proceedings before a Court.

 Mode of trial  

(1) Contempt of Court may be tried upon indictment or dealt with summarily by the Supreme Court.

(2) Unless the Court decides to try the alleged contemnor summarily, the Director of Prosecutions must be notified of every referral to the Supreme Court for committal proceedings, for his action. Summary procedure for committal

(1) A Court dealing with an allegation of contempt of Court shall try an alleged contemnor summarily only where it is satisfied that such a course will preserve the integrity of the trial or the dignity of the court.

 (2) Where it is alleged, or appears to the Court on its own view, that a person is guilty of contempt of Court in— 

(a) the disobedience of a court order;

(b) through prejudicial publication;

(c) contemptuous conduct displayed in the face of the Court,

(d) contemptuous conduct done in the hearing of the Court, the Court may— (i) by oral order direct that the contemnor be brought before the Court; or (ii) issue a warrant for the arrest of the contemnor.

 (3) Where the contemnor is brought before the Court, the Court shall— 

(a) cause the contemnor to be informed orally of the contempt with which he or she is charged, and be allowed reasonable time to obtain legal representation and advice;

(b) require the contemnor to enter a plea and make his defence to the charge;

(c) after hearing the contemnor, determine the matter; and

(d) make an order for the punishment or discharge of the contemnor.

 (4) The Court may, pending disposal of the charge— 

(a) direct that the contemnor be kept in custody as the Court may determine; or

(b) direct that the contemnor be released, and such a direction is sufficient authority for the contemnor to be kept in custody or released, as the case may be. 5 Punishment

(1) A person who commits a contempt of Court shall be guilty of an offence, and is punishable by a term of imprisonment or a fine.

(2) The committal shall, without prejudice to the power of the Court to order his earlier discharge, be for a fixed term not exceeding two years.

(3) Where a court imposes a fine for the punishment of contempt of Court, the Court shall order that the fine be paid within a definit

Judge’s court wig and hammer or gavel

e time, but no less than seven days, after the date of the order.

(4) The payment of a fine imposed as punishment for a contempt of Court shall be enforced upon the order of the Court as if the order were a judgment or order for the payment of money. (5) The Court may in addition to any sanction it may impose, order any instrument used in unauthorised recording, or any such recording made with it, or both, to be forfeited, and any instrument or recording so forfeited shall be disposed of or dealt with in such manner as the Court may direct subject to the owners right to be heard as to reason why such instrument or recording shall not be forfeited.

(6) Where the contemnor is a company, and the contempt is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance, or is attributable to the reckless conduct or act on the part of, any director, manager of or any other person in charge of or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, that person shall also be deemed to be guilty of contempt of Court. (7) In pursuance of subrule (6), a person shall not be deemed to be guilty of contempt of Court if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.

(8) At all times and in all circumstances, it shall be open to the Court to require an apology or, a retraction from a contemnor without recording a conviction.

(9) The Court may also issue a reprimand or a warning, and the disregard of the reprimand or warning may lead to an imposition of a fine or a term of imprisonment.

MADE this 21st day of November 2024.

Continue Reading

News

PAY FIRST. QUESTION LATER.

Published

on

Premier explains costly arbitration lesson after years of legal battles over InterHealth Canada bills

 

By Deandrea Hamilton | Editor

PROVIDENCIALES, Turks and Caicos Islands — The Turks and Caicos Islands has learned the hard way that when it came to the InterHealth Canada hospital agreement, successive governments could question the bills—but they still had to pay them first. It is an expensive lesson which has cost the country tens of millions of dollars in arbitration, legal fees and disputed invoices, and one Premier Charles Washington Misick finally laid out in detail during a ministerial statement in the House of Assembly on July 31.

A day earlier, the Progressive Democratic Movement (PDM) had stunned the country with its own assessment of the hospital arrangement, saying nearly $1 billion had already been spent under the agreement, approximately $60 million remained outstanding on the original hospital loan and a fresh arbitration exposed taxpayers to even more financial risk. Opposition Leader Douglas Parnell warned that time was rapidly running out.

“There are only 80 days remaining before this agreement expires. This crisis is happening now, and I’m not going to allow this present healthcare crisis affecting the people of these islands to be brushed aside or buried beneath arguments about decisions made nearly 20 years ago or statements of false comfort.”

On Friday, the Premier responded with what he described as “a full and frank account” of the hospital project and the Government’s handling of the dispute.

“The people deserve honesty. They deserve to understand how we arrived at this moment, what it has cost them, and what this Government is doing about it.”

While Premier Misick disputed the Opposition’s estimate of the Territory’s current arbitration exposure, he did not dispute that the legal battles have come at an extraordinary cost. Instead, he disclosed that the first arbitration alone cost the country approximately $39.7 million in damages, legal fees and arbitration expenses, while confirming that a second arbitration remains active and that the Government has already been ordered to pay approximately $9.3 million in disputed invoices as that case continues.

The Premier explained that the costly cycle was built into the agreement itself.

“The concession agreement required Government to continue making payments while disputes proceeded to arbitration,” he told Parliament, explaining that the legal framework effectively required the Government to pay first and dispute later.

For many watching, the Premier’s statement was the first detailed public explanation of why taxpayers continued paying millions while the Government simultaneously challenged the invoices in court and arbitration.

Looking ahead, Misick made it clear that the Government’s focus is no longer only on defending lawsuits but on ending the arrangement altogether. He said an active transition is underway to return the hospitals to public control while also seeking reforms to international arbitration rules that he believes unfairly disadvantage small island states facing complex commercial disputes.

The Premier closed by setting out what he said is the Government’s objective for the future.

“This Government will resolve the concession. It will reclaim the hospitals. And it will build a healthcare system worthy of the trust that our people place in it.”

Whether that plan ultimately succeeds remains to be seen. But after years of legal battles, arbitration rulings and mounting public concern, the country now has its clearest explanation yet of why the bills kept coming—even while they were being disputed—and what the Government says it intends to do to finally bring one of the Turks and Caicos Islands’ most expensive public contracts to an end.

Continue Reading

Education

Dr. Candice Williams Appointed First Vice-President of Regional Higher Education Association  

Published

on

ACHEA Executive Team 

Providenciales, Turks and Caicos Islands 5 August 2026 — Dr. Candice Williams, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Turks and Caicos Islands Community College (TCICC), has been appointed First Vice-President of the Association of Caribbean Higher Education Administrators (ACHEA) for the 2026–2028 term.

The appointment followed elections held during ACHEA’s Annual General Meeting on 2 July 2026 at the Breezes Resort & Spa in Nassau, The Bahamas. The newly elected Executive officially assumed office on 1 August 2026.

ACHEA is a regional professional association that brings together higher education administrators and professionals from institutions across the Caribbean. The Association provides an important platform for regional collaboration, professional development, knowledge-sharing and the advancement of effective leadership and administration within the higher education sector.

This year holds special significance for the Association as ACHEA celebrates its 25th anniversary, marking a quarter-century of service to higher education leadership and institutional development across the region. The milestone reflects the organisation’s sustained growth, expanding influence and continued commitment to strengthening tertiary education systems throughout the Caribbean and beyond.

Dr. Williams’s appointment as First Vice-President represents a significant professional achievement and a proud milestone for TCICC and the wider Turks and Caicos Islands. It positions the country’s higher education leadership at the forefront of regional dialogue and initiatives aimed at strengthening institutional governance, improving administrative practices and addressing emerging priorities within Caribbean tertiary education.

In her role as First Vice-President, Dr. Williams will support the President and Executive in advancing the Association’s strategic objectives, strengthening engagement among member institutions and contributing to initiatives that promote excellence, innovation and sustainable development throughout the regional higher education sector.

The Honourable Rachel Marshall Taylor, Minister of Education, Youth, Sports and Culture, congratulated Dr. Williams on the appointment, noting that her elevation reflects both her distinguished leadership and the growing influence of the Turks and Caicos Islands within the regional education community.

“On behalf of the Ministry of Education, Youth, Sports and Culture, I extend heartfelt congratulations to Dr. Candice Williams on her appointment as First Vice-President of ACHEA. This achievement is a testament to her exemplary leadership, professionalism and unwavering commitment to the advancement of higher education. Her appointment is also a proud moment for the Turks and Caicos Islands, as it ensures that our national perspectives and experiences will continue to contribute meaningfully to important regional discussions. We are confident that Dr. Williams will serve with distinction and make a valuable contribution to the continued growth and development of higher education administration throughout the Caribbean.”

Following the Minister’s remarks, Mrs Sheba Wilson, Chairman of the Turks and Caicos Islands Community College Board of Govenors, also commended Dr. Williams’s appointment, highlighting the broader institutional and regional significance of her leadership role.

The Chairman reflected on the importance of sustained representation at the regional level and the College’s growing engagement within Caribbean higher education networks.

“Dr. Williams’s appointment to the ACHEA Executive is a clear reflection of the calibre of leadership we are fortunate to have at the Turks and Caicos Islands Community College. It also underscores the increasing visibility and respect that our institution and country are earning within regional higher education circles. We are especially proud that TCICC continues to contribute meaningfully to shaping conversations that influence the future of tertiary education across the Caribbean.”

Dr. Williams’s appointment also reinforces TCICC’s commitment to strengthening regional partnerships, sharing institutional expertise and contributing to the development of responsive and innovative higher education systems. Her participation at the executive level will provide further opportunities for TCICC to engage with regional institutions, exchange best practices and help shape approaches to the challenges and opportunities facing tertiary education across the Caribbean.

A notable moment in ACHEA’s recent history was the 2025 Annual Conference, which Dr. Williams had the privilege of hosting in the Turks and Caicos Islands. This marked the first time the Association convened its flagship conference in the TCI, welcoming more than 100 higher education administrators, researchers and thought leaders from across the Caribbean, North America and Africa to the destination. The event was widely regarded as a resounding success and is now recognised as a defining milestone in the Association’s development as it moves into its 25th anniversary year.

Reflecting on her appointment, Dr. Williams expressed gratitude for the confidence placed in her and reaffirmed her commitment to supporting the work of the Association.

“I am deeply honoured to have been entrusted with the responsibility of serving as First Vice-President of ACHEA. I am grateful to the Association’s membership for the confidence placed in me and look forward to working alongside the President, fellow Executive members and higher education professionals throughout the region. This appointment provides an important opportunity to strengthen collaboration, promote innovative administrative practices and support the continued development of institutions that are responsive to the needs of Caribbean learners and communities. I am also proud to represent the Turks and Caicos Islands Community College and the wider Turks and Caicos Islands as we contribute to the advancement of higher education across the region.”

The newly elected ACHEA Executive for the 2026–2028 term comprises:

  • President: Dr. Helen Williams-Cumberbatch
  • First Vice-President: Dr. Candice Williams
  • Second Vice-President: Ms Louri Clare
  • Secretary: Mrs Kasiane Reid-Martin
  • Assistant Secretary: Ms Sanielle Hinds
  • Treasurer: Ms Michelle Bruce
  • Assistant Treasurer: Dr. Courtney Garrick
  • Public Relations Officer: Ms Nataki Kerr
  • Assistant Public Relations Officer: Ms Alison Johnson

In a statement announcing the newly elected Executive, ACHEA extended its sincere appreciation to all members who participated in the election process and acknowledged the outgoing Executive members for their exemplary leadership, commitment and dedicated service throughout the previous term.

The full Executive, including members appointed to co-opted positions, will be introduced shortly.

Dr. Williams previously served as Second Vice-President of ACHEA. Her elevation to First Vice-President reflects the confidence of the Association’s membership in her leadership, experience and continued contribution to the advancement of higher education administration throughout the Caribbean.

Continue Reading

News

Facts According to the Turks & Caicos Premier About His Constitutional Amendments    

Published

on

What Premier Charles Washington Misick says the proposed constitutional reforms are—and are not.

 

FACT 1: The proposed amendments are not intended to extend the life of Parliament.

According to Premier Misick, his Government did not request longer parliamentary terms and has not sought constitutional changes to keep itself in office beyond the existing electoral cycle.

FACT 2: Cabinet expansion is about governing capacity, not political power.

The Premier says the proposed increase in the number of ministers reflects the growing responsibilities of Government and is intended to improve administration rather than create political advantage.

FACT 3: The Government wants greater local responsibility.

Misick says the constitutional proposals are designed to strengthen the Turks and Caicos Islands’ ability to govern its own affairs while maintaining its constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom.

FACT 4: The Constitution should not become a political weapon.

The Premier argues constitutional reform should be approached as a national issue that outlives individual governments and political parties.

Include his strongest quote on this point.

FACT 5: The Commission process involved consultation.

According to the Premier, the constitutional proposals emerged through discussions with the Constitutional Review Commission and engagement with stakeholders before being presented to the United Kingdom.

Insert his supporting quote.

FACT 6: Government is seeking better governance, not fewer checks and balances.

The Premier maintains the reforms are intended to improve decision-making, accountability and the effectiveness of Government.

Insert his supporting quote.

FACT 7: The Premier says some proposals now being criticized were previously supported.

Misick contends that several constitutional recommendations now under attack had earlier received support across the political spectrum.

Insert the relevant quotation.

FACT 8: The goal is a modern Constitution.

The Premier says the reforms are intended to modernize the Turks and Caicos Islands’ governance framework to better reflect today’s realities and future development.

Insert his closing quotation.

Editor’s Note

This Fact Report summarizes Premier Charles Washington Misick’s explanation of the proposed constitutional amendments as presented in the House of Assembly on July 31, 2026. It reflects the Premier’s stated positions and is intended to help readers understand the Government’s rationale. Responses from the Opposition and other stakeholders will be presented separately.

Continue Reading

FIND US ON FACEBOOK

TRENDING