An appeal by a sex offender to suspend a deportation order has been struck down by the Supreme Court.

Ernest Charles McQueen, 58, a Jamaican national, was due to be released from prison this month after having served time for sexually exploiting a young person while in a position of trust.

However, in advance of his release, it was announced that he would remain in custody until his “imminent deportation”.

According to a recent court ruling, McQueen applied for a stay of the deportation order, claiming that he was wrongly convicted in 2015 and intended to use fresh evidence to overturn his conviction.

In the ruling, Puisne Judge Shade Subair Williams refused the application, finding that the “fresh evidence” was inadmissible hearsay and his prospects for appeal were “hopeless”.

Mrs Justice Subair Williams added that McQueen could still pursue his appeal from outside the island, if he wished.

She said: “While it would obviously be more convenient to him to carry out those steps within the jurisdiction, I saw no reason why he would be prevented from fully pursuing his efforts to appeal from Jamaica, his country of nationality.

“In this era of litigation, parties are able to appear before the court by way of video link and are able to communicate with the registry by way of e-mail.

“In the end, I found that the inconvenience of pursuing an appeal from outside of Bermuda was far less than the criminal harm any child or young person might suffer at the hands of a freed McQueen, who may fairly be characterised as a prolific sex offender.”

McQueen was found guilty on November 10, 2015, of two counts of sexual exploitation while in a position of trust.

He was sentenced to 15 years behind bars, of which he was ordered to serve at least half before becoming eligible for release on licence.

McQueen was set to be released from custody last Wednesday. However, a deportation order was made on February 13 to deport him from the island.

He sought to suspend the deportation order, stating that on January 24 he filed a criminal appeal in the Court of Appeal.

McQueen claimed that he had sought to introduce fresh evidence and that three individuals had come forward to claim that one of the principal prosecution witnesses in his trial confessed to lying under oath.

He argued that deportation would impair his ability to appeal his conviction and cause “serious and potentially irreversible prejudice”.

Mrs Justice Subair Williams said that evidence of statements allegedly heard to be said by the victim of the serious sexual assaults was “plainly inadmissible”.

She added that there was a risk that McQueen would commit further offences if released into the public pending his appeal.

Mrs Justice Subair Williams wrote: “Should McQueen cause further harm of any nature similar to the previous acts for which he has been held criminally responsible, that in my judgment would constitute irremediable harm incapable of being compensated by way of damages.

“Because I found that there was a real risk of irremediable harm occasioned by a stay or temporary injunction against the deportation order, it would not have been appropriate to grant temporary injunctive relief based merely on the ‘serious question to be tried’ test.”

In all the circumstances, she refused his application and declined to disturb the deportation order.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers