Historical Landmarks

Legislative Advancements

In many cases, this has occurred, not as a result of any international obligation, but through the persistence and pressure exerted by the people of the Cayman Islands.

For example, in 1831, during a famed meeting at Pedro St. James, the people of Cayman asserted the right to elect their own representatives, who would go on to form a legislative assembly for better and more accountable local government.

Similarly, in 1912, some 335 Caymanian parents campaigned for enhanced rights to education for their children. Following a seven year battle, the Education Law of 1920, which provided for free compulsory education for all children between 7 and 14 years of age was finally passed.

Another celebrated example is that of the 358 women from throughout the Cayman Islands who, in 1957, lobbied for the rights of women to vote and stand in public elections. Their efforts were ultimately rewarded, when the Sex Discrimination (Removal) Law was enacted on the 8th December 1958.

These last two examples illustrate how a democratically elected local assembly can respond positively to organised pressure from the people of the Cayman Islands and enact legislation that increases protection for fundamental human rights.

Judicial Pronouncements

However, the historical development of human rights in the Cayman Islands has not been the exclusive preserve of the Legislative Assembly; nor has it been entirely dependent upon large groups of campaigners. Notwithstanding the absence of human rights in the constitution, an independent judiciary has also provided individuals with a mechanism to affirm their rights through the courts.

For example, in 1955, Mr. Ormond Panton, a prominent Caymanian politician, succeeded in overturning his conviction for non-payment of taxes due in respect of his vehicle on the basis that he had not received a fair trial. The Commissioner (now known as the Governor) had instructed the Collector of Taxes to sue Mr. Panton. However, the Commissioner then also personally ruled on the case that resulted in Mr. Panton’s conviction. This led Mr. Panton to complain that he had not received a fair trial and that this was an abuse of power, which breached the principles of natural justice. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal agreed with Mr. Panton, overturned his conviction, and in so doing acknowledged that individuals had a right to a fair trial.

More recently, in 2001, the Grant family took its struggle for their son to attend school, whilst freely manifesting his right to religious freedom, to the courts. They challenged a decision to exclude their son from school, for so long as he wore his hair in dreadlocks. Upholding an appeal, the Court of Appeal not only recognised the Rastafarian religion, but also, on the facts of the case, protected the wearing of hair in dreadlocks as a manifestation of that religion.

Last Updated: 2007-01-29