Judge calls for ‘urgent action’ on street dwelling

Justice Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell, in a ruling on the judicial review application of deportee Hugh Bernard, last month, said the lawsuit although having failed on its merits served as a “clarion call for urgent action to be taken by the nation to address the issues of the socially displaced.” In her ruling, the judge commended Bernard, who brought the action on behalf of other street dwellers at Tamarind Square, for bringing the lawsuit as it highlighted the “need for scrutiny” of the unacceptable conditions faced by the homeless.

“The reasons for the plight of the persons reduced to living in such circumstances are many and varied. However, what is certain is that in a society as small as ours these persons are connected perhaps by less than six degrees of separation from each of us. Accordingly, this issue of street dwelling is a matter that requires urgent attention and it is a concern from which no member of society can feel absolved of responsibility.

A nation’s greatness, according to Mahatma Gandhi is measured by how it treats its weakest members,” Donaldson-Honeywell noted in her ruling.

She dismissed Bernard’s lawsuit as he failed to show that judicial review was an appropriate remedy for the alleged breaches of his constitutional rights or that it had a realistic prospect of success.

Bernard’s application was dismissed with no orders for costs.

In her ruling, the judge described the claim as a “novel” one which was timely as the court took “judicial notice of the acute crisis of socially displaced persons occupying the pavements and other public places with seemingly no place to call home.

“It is not a new phenomenon.

However, for decades communities such as the City of Portof- Spain have been increasingly faced with the problem of homelessness.

Street dwelling is a concern not only for those unfortunate persons who, whether by choice or having suffered dire life experiences, seek to stake a claim to entitlement to reside in public places but also presents a threat to other members of the public whose freedom of movement, safety and enjoyment of public places may be adversely affected by such occupation,” she said.

She added that there was a continued need to address the problem and seek workable solutions.

In the lawsuit, Bernard claimed the homeless were adversely affected by the corporation’s decision to place locks on the gates which denied them and other members of the public entry into the square.

In December of last year, the Corporation erected a fence around the perimetre of Tamarind Square, and towards the end of January, locks and chains were placed on the gates.

Four of the five gates around the square have been locked and the fifth gate has a padlock but has not yet been locked as the others.

The lawsuit contended that if this fifth gate to Tamarind Square was locked the socially displaced will have nowhere left to go.

Bernard argued that it was unfair to him and the other homeless people that they be denied entry into the square without any alternative arrangements being made to accommodate them. He also sought to have the court make an order requiring the City Corporation to leave the gates open until viable alternatives are made for them and that tents and portable toilets be placed in the square.