A woman and her two children, who were allegedly subjected to a brutal home invasion by bandits in 2002, were earlier this month granted a reprieve by a Canadian judge in their bid to remain in that country permanently.
Judge Anne Mactavish, on February 1, granted a judicial review and remitted the matter involving Estardai Beharry and her two children—Jonathan Beharry and Mohani Budhan—to a different Pre-removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) officer for re-determination.
According to the judgment, obtained by this newspaper, the three filed an application for a PRRA, in which they asserted that they would be at risk if they returned to Guyana. Their refugee claim had previously been rejected on the basis that adequate state protection was available for the family in Guyana. The board did, however, accept that the family had been subjected to a brutal home invasion, during which the mother was assaulted. Her injuries saw her being hospitalized for several days after the attack and the family sought refugee protection on their arrival in Canada in 2002.
The children were aged 16 and 12 at the time of the attack and from all indications they have been doing well in school since their move to Canada.
The family had based their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds on several factors, including the best interests of the children and the hardship they would face if they are compelled to return to Guyana.
Their PRRA application was rejected as the officer concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show that adequate state protection would not provided to the family, if required.
During the hearing, the family submitted that the evidence of increasing levels of violent crime demonstrated that the situation in Guyana had deteriorated since the time of their refugee decision to the extent that the board’s state protection finding should be revisited. The refugee hearing was in 2005 and according to Judge Mactavish the evidence that was before the PRRA officer in the recent hearing indicated that the rate of violent crime in Guyana has continued to increase since then. For example, in just one year, there had been a 9% increase in overall crime in Guyana and a 21% increase in armed robberies.
Even though the PRRA officer found that the family would have adequate state protection should they be returned to Guyana as the government had “made efforts” to address crime in Guyana, he did conclude that:
– Violent crime is a major problem in Guyana, and the crime rate is increasing;
– The Guyana Police Force lacks resources to effectively combat serious crime;
– Poor training and equipment and acute budgetary constraints severely limited the effectiveness of the Guyana Police Force, which is responsible for maintaining internal security;
– Public confidence in the Guyana Police Force is low;
– The Police Complaints Authority’s efforts to conduct impartial and transparent assessments of accusations against the police were obstructed by staff shortages and the lack of an investigative unit;
– “Racial polarization” has eroded law enforcement in Guyana and many Indo-Guyanese complain that they are victimized by the predominantly Afro-Guyanese police;
– The judicial system in Guyana is independent, but is impeded by staffing shortages and lack of funding;
– Although government spending aimed at combating crime had increased, little progress had been made on the key provisions of the multi-year Security Sector Reform plan; and
– Guyana lacks a coherent and prioritized national security strategy, and by 2009, the government had not adequately implemented proposed security reforms.
The judge found that the decision by the officer focused on efforts made by the government of Guyana to combat crime and did not properly assess whether those efforts have actually translated into adequate state protection. She said that the evidence relied upon by the officer simply does not support a finding that state protection in Guyana is adequate. “Indeed, it leads to the opposite conclusion. As a result the officer’s finding that adequate state protection would be available to the applicants in Guyana was not reasonable,” the judge said, before sending the matter for re-determination.
The judge also said she was concerned about the failure of the officer to appreciate or address the family’s submissions with respect to the impact that returning to Guyana would have for the children’s psychological well-being. This is even after the officer referred to the family’s submission that it would be “traumatizing” for the children to have to return to Guyana.
