A Jamaican national who was set to be deported upon his release from prison has won a court judgment that he has been discriminated against based on his gender.

Leighton Griffiths, who is married to a Bermudian, argued that the Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act discriminated against the foreign husbands of Bermudians.

While husbands of Bermudians can lose their right to reside if they are convicted of a “relevant offence” and are required to maintain “good character”, similar stipulations are not in place for foreign wives of Bermudians.

Griffiths was sentenced to serve 12 years in prison after he was convicted of possessing 480.5g of cocaine with intent to supply. He was arrested on July 1, 2005 when he went to the L.F. Wade International Airport to collect a Delta Home Air Compressor stuffed with drugs.

While he was set to be deported upon his release from prison, he sought a judicial review, challenging the legality of the deportation order.

In a judgment, delivered without an oral hearing, Chief Justice Ian Kawaley said he found no reason to depart from his ruling in the Bermuda Bred case which also focused on discriminatory elements in the Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act.

“I find that the provisions of section 27A of the 1956 Act are inconsistent with the provisions of section 2 as read with section 5 of the Human Rights Act to the extent that they purport to treat foreign husbands of Bermudian wives less favourably than foreign wives of Bermudian husbands,” the Chief Justice wrote. “The unfavourable treatment is quite blatant and consists of the fact that a foreign husband of a Bermudian wife purportedly loses his right to reside in Bermuda in circumstances where his female counterpart would not.

“The immigration rights afforded to the foreign spouses of Bermudian men are preferential to those afforded to foreign spouses of Bermudian women.

“The HRA prohibits discrimination by public authorities in the provision of services and facilities on the grounds of, inter alia, sex and further provides that legislation which is inconsistent with the HRA is liable to be declared inoperative to the extent.”