Colours parades have been a tradition in the Royal Bahamian Defence Force since its creation in 1980 and, at some of them, Christian prayers are said at one point in the parade. From 1993 to 2006, non-Christians were allowed to fall out before the prayers and fall in again after them; but that permission was revoked by a Memorandum in 2006. Former Petty Officer Laramore, a Muslim, objected to being obliged to attend Christian prayers on parade. In April 2007 he requested to be exempted from all Christian activity in the Force and that of other religions other than Islam, and twice in 2007 he left a parade during colours ceremonies when prayers were about to take place. He was charged with disobedience but before the resulting disciplinary proceedings could be concluded he challenged the constitutionality of the 2006 Memorandum, seeking damages. He was successful at first instance and on appeal. The Commodore of the Force, the attorney general and three others involved in seeking to discipline Mr Laramore then appealed to the Judicial Committee, arguing that the 2006 Memorandum did not infringe Mr Laramore's rights and/or was justified to ensure the efficient administration of the Force.

The Constitution of the Bahamas provides in Article 22 that ‘except with his consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience’ and that ‘except with his consent … no person attending any place of education shall be required to receive religious instruction or to take part in or attend any religious ceremony or observance if that instruction, ceremony or observance relates to a religion other than his own’. However, Article 22(5) provides an exception where ‘the law in question makes provision which is reasonably required … in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health’ and is ‘reasonably justifiable in a democratic society’. The appellants accepted that the Constitution was to be given a generous and purposive approach but argued, inter alia, that the concept of being hindered in Article 22(1) was carefully delimited. Whether Mr Laramore was hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience had to be judged objectively and would apply only if he was forbidden by his religion from staying on parade in the manner prescribed by the 2006 Memorandum or, at the least, if the interference was more than merely indirect, incidental or inconsequential. Moreover, they argued, the provisions of Article 22 about education confirmed that that article did not cover the military context.

The Judicial Committee disagreed: Lord Mance said that freedom of conscience was, in essence, a personal matter and that it was by reference to a person's particular subjective beliefs that it must be judged whether there had been a hindrance. No doubt there was an objective element in this judgment, but it arose only once the nature of the individual's particular beliefs had been identified. As to the contention that there could only have been a hindrance if Mr Laramore's religion had positively forbidden his staying on parade during prayers, the deciding factor was Mr Laramore's religiously based beliefs and conscience; and ‘hindrance’ was not the same as ‘prevention’. Lord Mance rejected the argument that by volunteering for the Force Mr Laramore had accepted its rules. Mr Laramore had been hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience; any suggestion of justification under Article 22(5) of the Constitution or on any other basis failed. The appeal was dismissed. [Frank Cranmer]