Chastanet contended that the Comptroller should not have dropped the charges against Ernest Hilaire in the debacle over his Range Rover.

The High Court dismissed Chastanet’s claims, arguing that the Comptroller was within his right to do so, and that Ernest Hilaire did nothing wrong.

Chastanet appealed that decision to the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal. Once more, the Court dismissed the claims in a ruling made on April 17th, 2024.

“Accordingly, Comptroller Emmanuel had an implied power under section 119 of the Act to discontinue or to withdraw, with the leave of the court, the criminal proceedings previously instituted by Mr. Chiquot as Comptroller against Dr. Hilaire for his alleged breach of section 103 of the Customs Management Act, unless such prosecution had been taken over and continued by the DPP pursuant to his powers under section 73(2) of the Constitution,” the 3-Judge Appeals panel observed.

The Court received affidavits from both the immediate past and present Comptrollers of Customs, who said that Dr Hilaire provided them with all necessary paperwork to prove that he owned the Range Rover and that it was imported legally.

To that end, the Justices say Chastanet had no “real prospect of success” in his claims.

“Accordingly, the Court finds that the appellant has failed to demonstrate an arguable case with a realistic prospect of success that the DPP had taken over and continued the prosecution of Dr. Hilaire in exercise of his powers under section 73(2) of the Constitution and that, accordingly, the power to discontinue or withdraw the said criminal proceedings did not continue to lie with the Comptroller of Customs.”

The only glimmer of hope for the Opposition Leader is that the Court did not order costs to be paid to the Office of the Comptroller.

“The general rule is that no order for costs may be made against an applicant for an administrative order unless the court considers that the applicant has acted unreasonably in making the application or in the conduct of the application. On this basis, the Court agrees with the appellant, and the respondents do not demur, that the High Court judge erred in making a costs order against the appellant, that the said costs order ought to be set aside, and an order of no order as to costs substituted.”