Delroy and Ryan have achieved a major legal milestone with their successful representation in Corporation of Hamilton v Attorney General [2025] UKPC 49. The Privy Council’s decision addressed complex constitutional issues spanning over five decades of Commonwealth jurisprudence, ultimately reaffirming key principles surrounding the enforceability of constitutional preambles and the protection of the rule of law. The ruling marks a significant moment in Bermuda’s constitutional landscape and underscores Ryan and Delroy’s continued leadership in high-profile public law cases.
In Corporation of Hamilton v Attorney General [2025] UKPC 49, the Privy Council faced several challenging questions, as noted by the President, Lord Reed.
Issue 1. The Board conducted a thorough review of 50 years of judgments from the Privy Council and the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) concerning the independent enforceability of introductory sections in Commonwealth constitutional instruments. While acknowledging that the CCJ has determined that introductory sections of Caribbean constitutions are independently enforceable, the Board rejected the approach taken by the CCJ and concluded, based on its established jurisprudence, that introductory sections to constitutions, such as Section 1 of the Constitution of Bermuda, are not independently enforceable.
Issue 2. Despite the decision on Issue 1, the Board found that Section 1(a) of the introductory section to the Bermuda Constitution provides a separate and independent enforceable right to protection under the law. However, the Corporation could not take advantage of this protection because its challenge to the legislation was deemed premature. This ruling is significant for the constitutional protection of the rule of law.
Issue 3: The Board expressed serious doubts about whether the Corporation qualifies as a public body capable of enjoying fundamental rights in the Constitutional. The Board however refrained from making a definitive statement on this issue.
Issue 4. The Board determined that there was no violation of the Corporation’s right to not be deprived of property under Section 13 of the Bermuda Constitution.
Issue 5: The Board concluded that there was no infringement on the freedom of expression and political opinion of municipal electors if municipal elections were abolished.”
