school

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Challenge

Challenge Fund invites applications from Anguillian NGOs for funding of projects designed to build human rights capacity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Don Mitchell,

I would like to draw your attention to the Challenge Fund that exists under the project to build human rights capacity in the British Overseas Territories.

This Fund is designed to give civil society organisations the opportunity to undertake activities that will help to increase respect for human rights, including in Anguilla. The kinds of actions that can be supported are very broad, as you can see from the attached Guidelines. We have tried to keep formalities limited to the necessary basics.

The next deadline for receipt of applications is Wednesday 30 June. The decision process is swift (within four weeks), which means that successful applicants can usually start their activities within two or three months of the deadline.

If you have any questions abut the Fund or the application process, please feel free to get in touch with me.

It would be very helpful if you will also inform other civil society organisations in Anguilla about the availability of the Challenge Fund.

With best wishes,
Peter Ashman
Peter Ashman
Consultant (Human Rights Capacity Building BOT Project)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GUIDELINES FOR THE CHALLENGE FUND FOR BUILDING HUMAN RIGHTS CAPACITY IN THE BRITISH OVERSEAS TERRITORIES

2010-2011

Overview

The Project “Building Human Rights Capacity in the British Overseas Territories”, funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID), is being carried out by the Commonwealth Foundation and its project partners, the Commonwealth Legal Education Association and the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.

This document sets out what activities can and cannot be supported, what the current priorities of the project are, and how to apply for an award.

The Fund will be open to all civil society organisations, as well as National Human Rights Institutions. It will work flexibly and responsively to support initiatives throughout the Overseas Territories rather than allocate funds per Territory.

The deadlines for receiving grant applications during the period covered by these guidelines are 31 March 2010 and 30 June 2010, 30 September 2010 and 31 December 2010

For more information on the project please visit www.commonwealthfoundation.com or www.OTscapacityCHRI.org

Strategic focus of funding

The Challenge Fund aims to encourage civil society organisations to engage with human rights issues by building the capacity of their members and the population at large on key issues, particularly in regard to the human rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

About the Project Partners

The Commonwealth Foundation is an inter-governmental organisation resourced by and reporting to Commonwealth governments that exists to promote and strengthen civil society's role in sustainable development, democracy and intercultural learning in the Commonwealth. Its mission is to strengthen civil society organisations across the Commonwealth as they promote democracy, advance sustainable development and foster inter-cultural understanding. It seeks a Commonwealth where civil society organisations realise their full potential, engaging with their governments and the private sector in the shared enterprise of transformational nation-building and international cooperation.

The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) is an independent, non-partisan, international non-governmental organisation that promotes human rights through education and advocacy. Its headquarters are in New Delhi (India) and it has offices in London (UK) and Accra (Ghana). CHRI’s mandate is to promote awareness of and adherence to the Commonwealth Harare Principles and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other internationally recognised human rights instruments and declarations made by the Commonwealth Heads of Governments as well as domestic instruments supporting human rights in the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth Legal Education Association (CLEA) fosters and promotes high standards of legal education in the Commonwealth. Founded in 1971, it is a Commonwealth-wide body with regional Chapters in South Asia, Southern Africa, West Africa, the Caribbean, and Europe and numerous country committees. Its work is overseen by an Executive Committee whose members represent: Australasia, Europe, The Caribbean, East Africa, West Africa, North America, Southern Africa, South Asia (Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka), South Asia (India), and South East Asia.

How much is available

The Fund has a total of £100,000 to disburse. The maximum award available to any one project is £5,000. Applicants are required to provide evidence of available matching funds in cash or in kind (i.e. voluntary facilities or labour that will be used in the project and that would otherwise have to be paid for to undertake the project activities). These matching funds or in-kind contributions must be approximately 20% of the project costs.

What we can support

Challenge Fund grants may be used towards the costs of the project activity, including supporting participants or resource people, campaigns, publications, awareness-raising, meetings and workshops, study visits, subsistence and travel, and new initiatives (“seed grants”), as well as towards monitoring and evaluation and reporting of an activity. Preference will be given to national activities.

What we cannot support

projects lasting longer than one year;

training courses taking place in a university in a developed country;

academic study or research;

presentation of papers at academic conferences;

the publication of books and films, unless these are learning tools developed as a result of an activity supported by the project;

core funding (such as salaries of permanent staff, office rental and general running costs).

Who can benefit

The Challenge Fund gives priority to activities where the direct beneficiaries are individuals or groups who:

are working in civil society organisations directly engaged in promoting human rights;

are employed in work which has direct relevance to the subject of the activity;

are in a position to transfer their learning to others.

Where funding is to support the participation of individuals in an event, the organisers should try to ensure that women and men participate in equal numbers.

The Challenge Fund does not give grants to support:

individual students;

government employees;

private businesses;

political parties.

Equality

All applicants will be expected to demonstrate how the activity and the organisation include gender and youth in their approach to the human rights issue. This should include:

equitable participation by women and men in the activity for which funding is being sought;

activities addressing a gender or youth issue, or which include a component which addresses a gender or youth issue;

participation in the governance of the organisation of both women and men.

Who can apply

Civil Society Organisations, National Human Rights Institutions and national capacity building committees or a group of people that have been established as part of the project can apply. But one individual, association or organisation must be able to sign the contract and be financially responsible for the use of the funds.

“Civil Society Organisations” broadly include non-governmental organisations, citizens’ organisations, people’s organisations, clubs and societies, faith-based groups, labour unions, professional associations, media organisations and ‘partnership’ organisations (i.e. a hybrid in various blends of public, private, voluntary and community organisations working together towards a common public good).

The Challenge Fund cannot consider applications from individuals.

In assessing applications, the Challenge Fund will give priority to applications from applicants who have not previously received funding from the Fund. An organisation cannot make more than one application per round.

Eligible countries

The Challenge Fund grants programme is intended to assist civil society organisations from, and citizens of, eligible countries listed in Annex 1.

Application process

There are four grant application rounds. The deadlines for the rounds are 24.00 GMT on 31 March 2010, 30 June 2010, 30 September 2010 and 31 December 2010.

There is no formal application form but all applicants must apply providing the information requested in annex 2 to these guidelines.

Applicants must send their applications by e-mail in a document containing the information required in annex 2, and any supplementary information, to geninfo@commonwealth.int. Please insert in the e-mail subject “Challenge Fund Application”.

Supplementary information can be sent by post to:

BOT Human Rights Challenge Fund

Commonwealth Foundation

Marlborough House, Pall Mall

London SW1Y 5HY

United Kingdom

If applications do not contain all the necessary information, we will not be able to consider your application during the current round.

Applicants should expect to hear from the Commonwealth Foundation four weeks after the deadline and should not apply to fund activities taking place before then. We cannot award grants for activities that have already taken place.

The decision making process

All potentially eligible grant applications made in the current round are assessed in the light of the Challenge Fund’s grants budget, and the grants which are considered to most closely fit the priorities and areas of interest will be taken forward.

If your application is successful, an email will be sent to you to discuss the details of the grant. Once the details have been agreed by email, a formal letter will be sent setting out the terms and conditions of the grant, along with the reporting templates, requirements and a deadline. Any variation from the grant as approved must first be cleared with the Foundation.

If your application is not successful, you will receive an email informing you of the outcome of your application.

A list of grants approved will be published on the project website - www.OTscapacityCHRI.org.

Reporting

All successful applicants are expected to submit a short narrative report on the activity for which funding was requested, as well as a financial report, within six weeks of the end of the activity. Where funding is provided to support participation in an event, the report should focus on the roles the sponsored participants played in the activity and the benefits they obtained. All grantees should report on how their organisation benefited from the grant, what impact the activity had on the situation addressed by it and any plans emerging for future collaboration and follow-up activities. The reporting templates will available on the Project’s website and will be e-mailed to each grantee.

Any photos, activity reports, newspaper articles or publicity material should also be sent to the Commonwealth Foundation.

Grant beneficiaries should also expect to be contacted by the Commonwealth Foundation up to a year after the activity for which they received funding has taken place. The Foundation will be keen to learn of any longer term impact the activity may have had.

Acknowledgement

It is mandatory for all successful applicants to acknowledge the support of the Challenge Fund in all documents or announcements associated with the activity for which funding is provided. This includes all written documents (reports, publications, press releases) or public announcements (speeches and addresses).

In addition:

the Challenge Fund should be mentioned in all printed material;

all beneficiaries of funding should be informed of the source; and

the Commonwealth Foundation should be sent copies of all documentation produced in association with the activity.

Checklist for submission

Before submitting your application, please check that you have:

read the guidelines thoroughly to see whether your project and organisation is eligible;

provided all the information as requested in the application set out in annex 2;

attached all supplementary information, including, as relevant:

annual report of your organisation;

the last set of audited accounts;

Please note that the Foundation does not acknowledge receipt of applications. Applicants should expect to hear from the Foundation about four weeks after the deadline.

ANNEX 1

ELIGIBLE TERRITORIES

Anguilla

Bermuda

British Virgin Islands

Cayman Islands

Turks and Caicos Islands

Montserrat

Pitcairn Island

Ascension Island

Falkland Island

Tristan da Cunha

St Helena

ANNEX 2

Challenge Fund for Building Human Rights Capacity in the British Overseas Territories

Application Form

Please include all the 21 elements listed below. Please try not to exceed 5 pages and respect the numbering and subheadings. Do not provide the information exclusively by way of annex (e.g. 09. Outline of Project – see Annex). Failure to provide all the information requested will delay consideration of your application.

Applicant information

Name of Organisation

Address of Organisation , including telephone and fax numbers and website (if any)

Aims and Objectives of Organisation

Structure of Organisation, including legal status, number of members and how it is governed (including the youth and gender dimension)

Main activities of the Organisation

Total annual budget of Organisation

Main items of expenditure

Main sources of income

Brief details of projects the Organisation has carried out during the past 5 years

Project information

Title of Project

Outline of Project, including who will be involved in implementing the project, who will benefit from it (with the gender and youth dimension) and the human rights situation the project addresses.

Region/area covered

Total Budget of Project

Main items of project expenditure, broken down into (a) personnel, (b) travel, (c) events, (d) materials, (e) any other project costs, (e) administration costs up to a maximum of (10%) of total project costs.

Period covered by grant

Amount of grant requested

How will the project be co-funded – distinguish between in cash and in kind

Additional Information

Any further information you consider relevant

Signature of person applying

Name and position in the Organisation

Date

Sunday, May 9, 2010

Reform

Proposals for reform. During the 2006 consultations on constitutional and electoral reform, several persons recommended to the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission that section 3.(3) of the 1982 Constitution of Anguilla is defective. It presently provides that a person arrested is to be brought before the Magistrate “without delay”. What is to be made of the meaning of this phrase?

Is it permissible to keep the suspect in the police cell for three days, or four days, or five days, on the ground that the investigation is still continuing? This procedure has often been used in the past by police officers to break a person's will and force him to confess his guilt. Some of these confessions have been true, but others have eventually been found to have been false, having been pressured out of weak or mentally defective persons who were not able to stand up to the stress of confinement.

In the more advanced constitutions of the Commonwealth Caribbean the solution has been to provide a strict deadline when a person in custody must be brought before the Magistrate, or he will be entitled to sue for breach of his constitutional rights. In some of our countries it is 24 hours. In others it is 48 hours.

At paragraph 13 of its 2006 Report of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission the Commission recommended that Anguilla's new Constitution should replace the present vague “without delay” with the stricter “within 48 hours”.

The police and the Attorney-General's Chambers don't like the proposal. But I believe a majority of us would feel safer and happier with such a reform.

Friday, May 7, 2010

Happy 50th to The Pill

Today celebrates the 50th birthday of The Pill. Though it has gone through many formula changes over the past half-century, its purpose remains the same: to give women the CHOICE. Mothers no longer had to choose between celibacy or having a reality-show-worthy brood of children. Single women could now have a sex life without fear of an unwanted pregnancy (though it should be noted that it was

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Licences

My interest was piqued this morning when I heard on the news that two young men had been arrested for conducting a business without a licence. There was no information released on the facts in this matter. I have no knowledge of the special circumstances affecting the men or their business. What I say here is not intended to advise anyone or their advisers. If you have any doubt whether you are required to obtain a business licence to cover some activity that you do in Anguilla, you should obtain appropriate legal advice, and not rely on what I am about to say here.

I have previously written on this issue, as you can read by checking my earlier post of 29 January 2008. The bottom line of that post was that the law of Anguilla does not require every business conducted in Anguilla to be licensed. The law only requires “places of business” where specified businesses are conducted to be licensed. This is what the law says:

Obligation to obtain licence to carry on certain trades, businesses, occupations and professions

3. Every person carrying on any trade, business, occupation or profession set out in the Schedule shall take out an annual licence in accordance with the provisions of this Act in respect of each premises or place where such trade, business, occupation or profession is carried on, and shall only carry on such trade, business, occupation or profession from such premises or place.

The meaning of the words in the section is clear. If you have a place of business at which you do one of the businesses set out in the Schedule to the Act, then you are required to obtain a licence in respect of the place in question. The Act does not say words to the effect that “no business shall be carried out in Anguilla without a licence”. The words above cannot be stretched to bear this meaning.

A ‘place of business’ is not defined under the law. However, the meaning of the words is clear enough. A place is a spot, a space on the ground, a location. The businesses that are required to be licensed are listed in the Schedule to the Act.

A place of business is by implication a place dedicated to doing business, a place to which you invite members of the public to do business with you. If you do your business of designing Christmas and greeting cards on the computer in your bedroom, your bedroom does not become a ‘place of business’.

If you conduct your business from three different locations, then you are required to obtain three different licences.

If you have a licensed business place, then you must carry out your business from there. You cannot have a licensed shop, and then open an unlicensed branch and claim that your licence covers that unlicensed branch.

If however, your business is of a type that does not require any contact in person with members of the public, and you in fact have no contact with the public at a particular place of your own, then it is clear that the words of the Act do not apply to you.

If you conduct your business from your home, or from a pay phone, or from the computers in the public library, ie, if your business is of a type that does not require a dedicated ‘place’ of business, then the Act does not require you to have a licence to conduct your business.

If I conduct my business in private, without inviting members of the public to come to my residence, then the Act does not apply to me.

Let us take a few practical examples. The Schedule lists these occupations:

32. Consultant/Arbitrator ............................................................................................... 1500.00

57. Hairdresser ................................................................................................................. 600.00

66. International Trader .................................................................................................. 1500.00

Each of these occupations can be carried out at a place of business as defined above. The places where I carry out the business would need to be licensed. Equally, they could be carried out without a place of business. I would not need a licence then to carry out the business.

A consultant who lives in Anguilla and is consulted on the telephone or in the homes or businesses of her clients is not required to be licensed. The St Kitts consultant engineer or attorney at law who flies in to Anguilla to do a particular job for a client, is not required to take out a licence in respect of his hotel room.

A hairdresser who visits clients at their homes or hotel rooms is not covered by the wording of the Act.

An international trader who uses her computer at home or at the Library and who does not have a ‘place of business’ is not compelled by the Act to have a place of business, and is not required to have a business licence.

A heavy-equipment operator who keeps his equipment near his home, and takes contracts to do work on different construction sites from time to time has no place of business, and is not required to take out a licence.

I hope the police arrested the right persons. Otherwise they could be in trouble under the law. Mind you, remember to take advice from your attorney before acting on what I have written here.

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Rights

The procedure the officer must follow after arresting me. We are looking at our rights under the Constitution once we have been arrested. Subsection (3) of section 3 of the Constitution provides the procedure that must be followed after a person is arrested. It says that, after an arrest, the arresting officer must bring the arrestee before a magistrate without delay. If a private person makes an arrest, he must give the arrestee into the custody of the police or a magistrate as soon as reasonably practicable.

No time limit for detaining an arrested person has been set in the law of Anguilla, but the courts of our region have frowned on a detention of three days. Such a length of time is too long to hold an arrested suspect without charging him. The purpose for taking the arrestee before the magistrate is for the court to consider whether he should be granted bail pending trial.

It is not lawful for the police to arrest a suspect, take him to the station, and keep him there indefinitely until he cracks and signs whatever statement they want him to sign. That is a considered a serious breach of our fundamental human right, and of our common law entitlement not to be forced to incriminate ourselves. Any confession or admission as to the commission of a crime must be freely given, and not forced or tortured out of us. The court will not allow such a confession to be produced in evidence.

Once a suspect has been charged, he must be brought to court on the first court day after the charge has been laid. In the case of arrest for a summary offence, the law permits the police to grant bail to the arrestee.

A number of cases from the region have established the existence of a constitutional right to an attorney, and the right to be informed by the arresting officer of the right to an attorney. In some Constitutions this right is spelled out, but in Anguilla the right remains one derived from common law. A detention will be illegal if the arrested person is not informed of his rights.

Sunday, May 2, 2010

Citizen's arrest

Citizens’ arrest. Private citizens in Anguilla have a power of arrest without a warrant. This power arises both at common law and by statute. At common law a citizen may arrest in situations where a person has breached or is about to breach the peace. A breach of the peace is an act done or threatened to be done which either actually harms a person or, in his presence, his property; or is likely to cause harm; or which puts someone in fear of such harm being done. It is the right and duty of every citizen in whose presence an actual or reasonably apprehended breach of the peace is being or is about to be committed. The purpose is to make the person who is breaching or threatening to breach the peace refrain from so doing. If it is appropriate, the citizen may detain him against his will.

In the case of Albert v Lavin (1981) the appellant, who caused a disturbance in a bus queue while attempting to board a bus, was arrested by an off-duty policeman. He resisted the arrest apparently disbelieving that the officer was a policeman. The court held that even if his belief had been reasonable, this did not make his resistance lawful, since in the circumstances his arrest was lawful. Even a private citizen had the right to arrest someone who has committed a breach of the peace in his presence. Whether the person who arrested him was a police officer or a private citizen was irrelevant.

Where the private citizen reasonable believes that there is an imminent threat of a breach of the peace he is justified in arresting the person who threatens the peace. In R v Howell (1981) the appellant and his friends caused a disturbance on the street after a party. Following complaints from neighbours the police arrived and asked the appellant to leave. He refused and continued to swear at the police. One of the officers took hold of his arm and a fracas ensued. He was arrested, charged with assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty, and convicted. He appealed his conviction on the ground that his arrest was unlawful and therefore, if he had struck the officer, it would have been in self-defence in escaping an illegal arrest.

The English Court of Appeal took the opportunity to set out definitively when the power of arrest without warrant for a breach of the peace existed. It exists where:

· a breach of the peace was committed in the presence of the person making the arrest; or

· the arrestor reasonably supposes that such a breach of the peace would be committed in the immediate future by the person arrested; or

· where a breach of the peace had been committed and it was reasonably believed that a renewal of it was threatened.

So, at common law any person can arrest without warrant a person whom he sees committing a murder, wounding, malicious damage and similar offences in his presence, or one about to do so.

In addition to the above common law provisions, statute has amplified a private citizen’s power of arrest. So, section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act empowers any person in Anguilla to apprehend a person found committing an offence punishable either upon indictment or upon summary conviction without a warrant and to take him before the Magistrate to be dealt with. This is a very broad power. In most countries such a power is limited to cases where the accused is committing an indictable offence, or in some cases a felony. Additionally, the owner of property or his agent may arrest any person whom he finds committing an offence against his property.

The person arrested is required to be turned over to a police officer promptly. The officer will take statements and will know what to do next.

Saturday, May 1, 2010

Grounds

The procedure the officer must follow when arresting me. We were looking at our fundamental right in Anguilla to personal liberty guaranteed by section 3 of the Anguilla Constitution 1982, and the power of the police to arrest us as an exception to this right. At this point it might be useful to recall the proper procedure to be followed during the arrest.

An arrest which would otherwise be lawful will be unlawful if the arresting officer neglects to follow the proper procedure during the arrest. An arresting officer who fails to observe the required procedure may be liable for false imprisonment. The government, and sometimes, if he was particularly badly behaved, the officer himself personally, may be made to pay damages. The following are some of our most important common law rules that supplement or explain the constitutional protection of our right to personal liberty.

First, the rule is that the arrested person must be informed that he is under arrest, and he must be informed of the true ground for the arrest either at the time of the arrest or as soon as practicable afterwards. The rule was originally established at common law by the leading case in 1947 of Christie v Leachinsky, but it is now a constitutional rule.

So, it is provided by subsection (2) to the same section 3 of the Constitution, that any person who is arrested or detained shall be informed orally and in writing as soon as reasonably practicable, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest or detention.

The common law which has developed since Christie's 1947 case remains useful for an understanding of the proper application of the rule. So, it has been held that the purpose of the constitutional right of every citizen to know why he is being detained is so that he will be in a position to know whether he is entitled to resist the arrest. A person who is being unlawfully arrested has the right to resist. If John Smith, a young man who is peacefully liming on the street corner, is approached by a police officer who holds on to him and says, “John Smith, come with me. I am taking you to the Station. The Sergeant wants to speak to you about wounding Mary Jones last week”, that young man is entitled to pull away and to say, “Do not put your hands on me again, or I will sue you for assault.” What the officer has to say is something like, “John Smith, I am arresting you for the offence of wounding Mary Jones”. That would be a lawful way to seize hold of John Smith and take him to the station. It is not necessary for the ground of arrest to be expressed in precise technical language. It is sufficient if the arresting officer conveys to the arrestee the substance of the alleged offence.

The rule that the person arrested is entitled to be told the reason for the arrest does not apply in two circumstances. The first is, where the arrestee must be taken to have been aware of the reason for the arrest, for example where he is caught 'red handed' in the commission of an offence. The second is, where the arrestee made it impossible for him to be told the reason for the arrest by counter-attacking or running away. Of course, if you know that you are being wrongfully arrested, it might be a very dangerous thing for you to resist. You may get injured, if the police officer has lost his self-control. It is much better to permit yourself to be illegally detained, and then to instruct a lawyer to sue for the insult and the injury done to you.