Court: Rasta child’s dad has no standing in constitutional matter
Published:Tuesday | September 24, 2019 | 12:27 AMNickoy Wilson/Gleaner Writer
Dale Virgo, father of a then five-year-old girl who was blocked from entering Kensington Primary School in 2018 because of her dreadlocked hairstyle, has been struck from the claim.
The claim, which was filed in 2018, said that the minor’s constitutional rights were breached when her parents were given an August 29, 2018, ultimatum to remove her locks or she would not be able to attend the St Catherine-based institution.
The Full Court panel comprising Justices Evan Brown, Nicole Simmons and Sonia Bertram-Linton, in handing down the ruling, said that Virgo did not meet the requirements to bring a constitutional claim.
The ruling was handed down yesterday at the Supreme Court in downtown Kingston as the three-day hearing got under way.
Justice Simmons said that the breach of Virgo’s constitutional rights was not established. She said that he is not a student at the school and, therefore, there was no right personal to him that would have been breached. She then concluded that Virgo had no standing in the matter.
Before that, attorney-at-law Carla Thomas from the Attorney General’s Chambers said Virgo did not meet the requirements to bring a constitutional claim before the court. She said that while the Constitution guarantees an individual’s right, it does not guarantee rights to the family.
But attorney-at-law Isat Buchanan, who represents Virgo, argued otherwise. He said that his client’s rights to privacy of home and family, guaranteed by the Constitution, were breached. He said the breach was as a result of the coercion by the school for his client to remove his Rastafarian daughter’s locks so that she could access education at the school. Buchanan further said that if the father opted not to send the child to school, he could have been held criminally accountable.
Rule won’t apply
Meanwhile, an affidavit filed on September 13 by the current school principal, Lisa Hamilton, stated that the no-locked hair rule would not apply to the child because of her religion.
Based on the evidence presented to the court, the mother did not make the school aware of the family’s religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court last August granted an injunction preventing the school from blocking the child from entering the institution because of her hairstyle.
The hearing continues today.