Couple who flouted Covid-19 rules were on a campaign – Royal Gazette

Sophia Cannonier and her husband, Michael Watson (File photograph by Akil Simmons)

A couple vowed to appeal their conviction for breaking Covid-19 emergency regulations all the way to the top after being found guilty in Magistrates Court yesterday.

Sophia Cannonier and Michael Watson, who were accused of breaching the islands public safety rules in July 2021, maintained that their challenge to the law made them a voice for others they said were treated unfairly under restrictions imposed during the pandemic.

The two refused to follow the Governments mandatory hotel quarantine for people who were not vaccinated against the infection after returning from a trip to Britain.

The couple argued that they had already developed a natural immunity to Covid-19 after contracting the illness.

Their trial sought to challenge the legitimacy of vaccination-based restrictions with a battery of medical evidence.

The case, argued by defence lawyer Marc Daniels, was embraced by opponents of the emergency measures rolled out by the Government during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Magistrate Khamisi Tokunbo delivered his judgment and ordered social inquiry reports on Cannonier and Watson ahead of sentencing, which is likely to take place in September.

Sophia Cannonier, centre, with a hat and dressed in light blue, and Michael Watson, to the immediate right of her, with supporters outside Magistrates' Court (Photograph by Jonathan Bell)

Supporters outside the court, who said they were denied entry to the building when they arrived to attend the hearing, applauded the couples vow to fight on.

There was repeated criticism of the long wait to resolve the case, which Mr Tokunbo addressed in his written judgment.

He said that the glaring delay between the end of the hearing of evidence and the delivery of judgment in this case calls for some explanation.

He explained that an administrative dilemma arose after the final hearing and the filing of the defences written submissions, when it became clear that his judgment could not be delivered before his retirement in September last year.

The magistrate said that despite raising the issue with the appropriate administrative authority, there was no known action taken.

Mr Tokunbo said that he had been invited from retirement in May to prepare judgment.

Cannonier and Watson were accused of refusing to comply with a requirement to quarantine and failure to complete travel authorisation forms on July 11, 2021.

Both were also charged with breaking a quarantine order on July 20 by leaving their Devonshire home, with Cannonier further accused of allowing unauthorised people to visit a place of quarantine.

Alan Richards, for the Crown, brought evidence from 14 witnesses during the trial.

The couple called evidence from their family doctor, Henry Dowling, along with an expert witness from overseas, Christine Parks, supported by their medical records showing antibodies against the virus.

They maintained that Bermudas regulations discriminated against unvaccinated people and argued that natural immunity provided by antibodies was equal to or better than the protection conferred by vaccination.

The couple relied on a reasonable excuse defence to the charges, but the prosecution called their evidence irrelevant.

In his judgment, Mr Tokunbo agreed, ruling that it was not relevant to any of the charges they face.

He found: The law at the time required a set protocol/regime for vaccinated persons and another for unvaccinated.

It did not include antibody status or natural immunity.

The magistrate also found that both defendants were fully aware of the rules at the time, with Cannonier stating during cross-examination that quarantine was an unfair discrimination.

Mr Tokunbo noted that Watson had previously complied with quarantine, along with his two children, but told the court that on returning that July, I had in mind not to put the children through that again.

The magistrate said that both sought exceptional treatment after landing in Bermuda and that it is clear that the defendants were on a campaign, with the press and supporters waiting at LF Wade International Airport.

Mr Tokunbo said Cannonier made reference during the couples joint trial to civil disobedience.

He said a health officer, accompanied by police, went to the couples home on July 11 to arrest them for violating health restrictions.

Mr Tokunbo added: But this was eventually aborted due to non-co-operation of the defendants, the aggressive crowd present in support of the defendants, discussions with their counsel and consideration of the defendants young children.

The two were allowed to quarantine at home with police guards stationed on the property.

Cannonier refused to accept a letter from health officials and made no effort to discover the contents, Mr Tokunbo found.

The magistrate found they then wilfully used their court bail conditions as an excuse to breach their 14-day quarantine and leave home that July 20.

Juan Wolffe, then the senior magistrate, had ordered the two to remain at home until they received a clear test on July 19 as part of bail, highlighting that their mandatory quarantine by health officials was a wholly separate matter, since the courts had no legal power to impose a quarantine.

Mr Tokunbo ruled the couple could not reasonably believe, or have reasonable excuse to believe, that the court was varying their 14-day home quarantine when bail was granted.

He added: I am satisfied that they were not operating under any honest, mistaken belief or ignorance of the law.

Rather, they sought to clearly manipulate their legal predicament (home quarantine/court bail) to suit their own aims or objectives (ie, civil disobedience).

He noted Cannonier had admitted bringing visitors to the house on July 20, while still under quarantine.

Mr Tokunbo found: Finally, the defendants raise a defence referred to as a Hail Mary pass.

As I understand it, this asserts that the defendants, upon leaving the Bermuda airport, were no longer travellers and therefore not subject to the Quarantine (Covid-19) (No 3) Order 2020.

The most I will say is that there is no legal or factual foundation cited to support this and the court accordingly disregards it.

Cannonier told The Royal Gazette: Theres a lot of pressure on them to toe the line its a global situation. But its not over.

We will take it all the way to the top. I am a fighter.

Watson said the case had been consistently in the background for the couple.

He said: There isnt a day that goes by that we arent discussing aspects of it. But in spite of all this going on, we have thrived in other aspects of our lives.

Court has not stopped us from living. But we also recognise we are the voice for many people who could not say something.

Its important that we continue.

It is The Royal Gazettes policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case

UPDATE: this article has been updated with more information and comments

View post:

Couple who flouted Covid-19 rules were on a campaign - Royal Gazette