Commodore Royal Bahamas Defence Force and others v Laramore

Freedom of conscience under article 22(1) of the Constitution of The Bahamas protects both belief and its manifestation in conduct. Whether a person is hindered is assessed by reference to that person's religiously based conscience, not solely by objective religious doctrine. Hindrance is not confined to prevention or substantial interference. Requiring a non-Christian service member to remove headwear and remain for Christian prayers may constitute active participation and a hindrance. Voluntary enlistment does not waive the right; alternative employment is relevant to proportionality. A restriction must be reasonably required and reasonably justifiable under article 22(5). The evidence did not justify universal attendance at regular colours prayers, although ceremonial parades raised a separate issue.

Former Petty Officer Gregory Laramore, who converted from Christianity to Islam while serving in the Royal Bahamas Defence Force, challenged a 2006 memorandum requiring all personnel to remain present for prayers during ceremonial and morning/evening colours parades. The earlier practice had allowed non-Christians to fall out during prayers.

Sir Michael Barnett CJ upheld the constitutional challenge and awarded damages. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Force's appeal by a majority, with Allen P dissenting. The appeal to the Privy Council concerned whether the memorandum hindered Mr Laramore's freedom of conscience under article 22(1) and, if so, whether the hindrance was justified under article 22(5). It also concerned whether the declaration should extend to ceremonial parades.

The Board unanimously dismissed the appeal, but qualified the declaration so that it applied only to the conduct of prayers during morning/evening colours. The position concerning ceremonial prayers was left open for separate determination.

1. Meaning of freedom of conscience. Article 22(1) protects both the internal forum of belief and the external manifestation of belief. The reference to manifestations is non-exclusive. Article 22(2), dealing specifically with education, does not limit the general protection in article 22(1).
2. Hindrance. The question is assessed by reference to the individual's subjective religious beliefs, followed by an objective assessment of the alleged interference. The person's religion need not formally forbid the conduct, and hindrance is not equivalent to prevention. The authorities, including Olivier v Buttigieg [1967] AC 115, did not establish a requirement of substantial interference. A court should be cautious before treating disregard of a fundamental right as minimal.
3. Application to the parade. The order to remove caps was not merely a gesture of respect. It required a person who objected in conscience to make a public gesture naturally understood as respect for Christian prayers. This constituted active participation and hindered the enjoyment of freedom of conscience. The Board agreed with Scott v R [2004] 123 CRR (2d) 371 on that point. It observed, without deciding the issue, that compulsory presence during prayers with caps on might also constitute a hindrance. The position at public ceremonial occasions was not determined.
4. Voluntary service and justification. A person's voluntary decision to enlist or remain in military service does not automatically negate interference. Following Eweida v United Kingdom Application Nos 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10, the possibility of changing employment is a factor in the proportionality assessment, taking account of hardship and inconvenience.
5. Article 22(5). The claimed interests of uniformity, discipline and efficiency were unsupported by the evidence. The earlier 13-year accommodation had produced no demonstrated decline in discipline, and the prayers and caps-off order had no clear military purpose. The restriction was therefore not reasonably justifiable.

• Privy Council: Appeal dismissed on 8 May 2017. The declaration was limited to morning/evening colours, leaving ceremonial prayers open.
• Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas: Appeal dismissed on 24 July 2014 by Conteh JA, with John JA agreeing; Allen P dissented.
• Supreme Court of The Bahamas: On 9 April 2013, Sir Michael Barnett CJ rejected the defence and awarded $10,000 damages.