Administration of Justice in Jamaica

8/12/2019 Administration of Justice in Jamaica

1/23

UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIESFACULTY OF LAW

Law and Legal Systems (2005-2006)

Wor s!eet No" #

T!e Adm$n$strat$on o% &'st$(e

Case Notes

T!e )'r$sd$(t$on o% t!e &'d$($al Comm$tteeo% t!e *r$+y Co'n($l

A ty,$(al ,ro+$s$on

Section 109 of the Constitution of Trinidad andTobago:

-./" (1) An appea sha ie fro! decisions ofthe Court of Appea to the "udicia Co!!ittee asof right in the fo o#ing cases:

(a) fina decisions in ci$i proceedings #here the!atter in dispute on the appea to the "udiciaCo!!ittee is of the $a ue of fifteen hundreddo ars or up#ards or #here the appea in$o $esdirect % or indirect % a c ai! to or &uestionrespecting propert% or a right of the $a ue offifteen hundred do ars or up#ards'

(b) fina decisions in proceedings for disso utionor nu it% of !arriage'

(c) fina decisions in an% ci$i cri!ina or otherproceedings #hich in$o $e a &uestion as to theinterpretation of this Constitution' and

(d) e cept in eases fa ing under section 10* (d)an% case referred to in that section'

(e) fina decisions in discip inar% !atters undersection *1(+) to (5) of the Supre!e Court of"udicature Act and under the So icitors Act'

(f) such other cases as !a% be prescribed,

(2) An appea sha ie fro! decisions of theCourt of Appea to the "udicia Co!!ittee #iththe ea$e of the Court of Appea in the fo o#ingcases:

(a) decisions in an% ci$i proceedings' #here inthe opinion of the Court of Appea the &uestionin$o $ed in the appea is one that b% reason ofits great genera or pub ic i!portance or

other#ise ought to be sub!itted to the "udiciaCo!!ittee' and

(b) such other cases as !a% be prescribed,(+) An appea sha ie to the "udicia Co!!ittee#ith the specia ea$e of the "udicia Co!!ittee

fro! decisions of the Court of Appea in an% ci$ior cri!ina !atter in an% case in #hichi!!ediate % before the date on #hich Trinidadand Tobago beca!e a epub ic an appea cou dha$e been brought #ith the specia ea$e of tier.a/est% to er .a/est% in Counci fro! suchdecisions,

Section 10* pro$ides:

-.0" An appea to the Court of Appea sha beas of right fro! decisions of the igh Court inthe fo o#ing a!ong other cases that is to sa%:

(a) an% order or decision in an% ci$i or cri!inaproceedings on &uestions as to theinterpretation of this Constitution'

(b) an% order or decision gi$en in e ercise of the /urisdiction conferred on the igh Court b%section 1 (#hich re ates to redress forcontra$ention of the pro$isions for theprotection of funda!enta rights)'

(c) an% order or decision gi$en in thedeter!ination of an% of the &uestions for thedeter!ination of #hich a right of access to theigh Court is guaranteed b% sections (a) and5(1)'

(d) an% order or decision of the igh Courtgranting or refusing ea$e to instituteproceedings for the deter!ination of an%&uestion referred to it under section 52 ordeter!ining an% such &uestion (#hich re ates tothe appoint!ent &ua ification e ection or!e!bership of a Senator or a !e!ber of theouse of epresentati$es as the case !a% be)'


2/23

(e) an% order or decision of a Court in thee ercise of its /urisdiction to punish for conte!ptof court inc uding cri!ina conte!pt,

A,,eal as o% r$g!t on a (onst$t't$onalmot$on

Farrington v The Queen 19963 + 4, , , 1

The app icant #as con$icted of !urder in the7aha!as in 1992 and sentenced to death, isappea to the Court of Appea of The 7aha!as#as dis!issed and the "udicia Co!!ittee of the8ri$% Counci dis!issed his petition for speciaea$e to appea against con$iction, n .arch1996 the app icant issued a !otion for re iefunder artic e 2* of the Constitution of The7aha!as c ai!ing that de a% in carr%ing out hise ecution had contra$ened his funda!enta

right to protection fro! inhu!an and degradingtreat!ent guaranteed b% artic e 1 (1) andsought an order sta%ing his e ecution pendingdeter!ination of the constitutiona !otion, The

/udge dis!issed the app ication for a sta% on theground that the app icant s !otion #as ;p ain %and ob$ious % bound to fai ,; The Court ofAppea of The 7aha!as #ithout !aote: Section 10 (1)?(2) pro$ides as fo o#s:

An appea to the Court of Appea sha ie as ofright fro! fina decisions of the Supre!e Courtgi$en in e ercise of the /urisdiction conferred onthe Supre!e Court b% artic e 2* of thisConstitution (#hich re ates to the enforce!entof funda!enta rights and freedo!s), (2) An

appea sha ie as of right to the "udiciaCo!!ittee of er .a/est% s 8ri$% Counci or tosuch other court as !a% be prescribed b%8ar ia!ent under artic e 105(+) of thisConstitution fro! an% decision gi$en b% theCourt of Appea in an% such case,

8er ord @eith at pp, 1 9-1*0: There #as a debate as to #hether an appea

ies as of right in the present case, Counse forthe app icant contrasted the right of appeaunder artic e 10 (1) to the Court of Appeaagainst ;fina decisions of the Supre!e Court;#ith the right of appea under artic e 10 (2)from ;an% decision gi$en b% the Court of Appeain an% such case,; That #ording he argued #as#ide enough to co$er an% decision #hether finaor inter ocutor%, Their ordships re/ect thatitera interpretation, t #ou d be un#or


3/23

Frater v The Queen 19*13 1 4, , , 1 6*

8er ord Dip oc< at pp, 1 69-1 0:

7efore departing fro! the !atter theirordships desire to co!!ent upon the groundsupon #hich the appea #as brought to er.a/est% in Counci apparent % as of right undersection 110 (1) of the Constitution of "a!aicaE,,

Section 20 (6) (a) of the Constitution reads:

;(6) F$er% person #ho is charged #ith acri!ina offence - (a) sha be infor!ed assoon as reasonab % practicab e in a anguage#hich he understands of the nature of theoffence charged' ,,,;

n their ordships $ie# it cannot p ausib % besuggested that an% &uestion of interpretation ofthe p ain and si!p e #ords ;infor!ed ,,, of thenature of the offence charged; in section 20 (6)(a ) arose in the instant case, The &uestion that

did arise or cou d ha$e done if in the Court ofAppea re iance had been p aced upon thisconstitutiona pro$ision (as does not appear toha$e been the case) #as the application ofthese p ain and si!p e #ords to the particu arfacts of .r, Grater s case, The infor!ationre&uired to be gi$en to an accused b% paragraph(a) of section 20 (6) is in order to enab e hi! toe ercise effecti$e % his rights under thei!!ediate % fo o#ing paragraph (b) #hichpro$ides that he ;sha be gi$en ade&uate ti!eand faci ities for the preparation of his defence,;

n Harrikissoon v. Attorney-General of Trinidadand Tobago 19*03 A,C, 265 this 7oard hadoccasion to point out the danger of a o#ing the

$a ue of the right to app % to the igh Court forredress for contra$ention of his funda!entarights and freedo!s #hich is conferred upon theindi$idua b% section 6 of the Constitution ofTrinidad and Tobago (of #hich the correspondingsection in the Constitution of "a!aica is section25) to beco!e debased b% ac< of $igi ance onthe part of the courts to dispose su!!ari % ofapp ications that are p ain % fri$o ous or$e atious or are other#ise an abuse of processof the court, n their ordships $ie# si!i ar$igi ance shou d be obser$ed to see that c ai!s!ade b% appe ants to be entit ed to appea as ofright under section 110 (1) (c) are not grantedun ess the% do in$o $e a genuine % disputab e&uestion of interpretation of the Constitution andnot one #hich has !ere % been contri$ed for thepurpose of obtaining ea$e to appea to er.a/est% in Counci as of right,

Alleyne-Forte v Attorney General ofTrinidad and Tobago 199*3 1 4 6*

8er ord >icho s at pp, 2- +:

Their ordships !ention one further point,Hnder section 109(1)( c ) of the Constitution an

appea ies as of right to the "udicia Co!!itteefro! fina decisions of the Court of Appea ;inan% ci$i cri!ina or other proceedings #hichin$o $e a &uestion as to the interpretation of thisConstitution,; n their #ritten case therespondents sub!itted that there #as here nogenuine % disputab e &uestion of interpretationof the Constitution as distinct fro! itsapp ication to a particu ar set of facts and thatthe app icant #as not entit ed to appea as ofright, The% re ied on the obser$ations of ordDip oc< inFrater v. The Q een (!ote) 19*13 14, , , 1 6* 1 0:

; n Harrikissoon v. Attorney-General ofTrinidad and Tobago 19*03 A,C, 265 this7oard had occasion to point out the danger ofa o#ing the $a ue of the right to app % to theigh Court for redress for contra$ention ofhis funda!enta rights and freedo!s #hich isconferred upon the indi$idua b% section 1 3of the Constitution of Trinidad andTobago , , , to beco!e debased b% ac< of

$igi ance on the part of the courts to disposesu!!ari % of app ications that are p ain %fri$o ous or $e atious or are other#ise anabuse of process of the court, n theirordships $ie# si!i ar $igi ance shou d beobser$ed to see that c ai!s !ade b%appe ants to be entit ed to appea as of rightunder section 110(1)( c ) are not grantedun ess the% do in$o $e a genuine % disputab e&uestion of interpretation of the Constitutionand not one #hich has !ere % been contri$edfor the purpose of obtaining ea$e to appeato er .a/est% in Counci as of right,;

ad this been an appea under section 109(1)( c )(the e&ui$a ent of section 110(1)( c ) of the

"a!aican Constitution) there !ight ha$e beenforce in this sub!ission, This appea ho#e$er#as brought under section 109(1)( d ) #hich b%reference to section 10*( b ) pro$ides for appea sas of right fro! ;an% order or decision gi$en ine ercise of the /urisdiction conferred on the ighCourt b% section 1 (#hich re ates to redress forcontra$ention of the pro$isions for theprotection of funda!enta rights),;

An appea as of right b% definition !eans thatthe Court of Appea has no discretion toe ercise, A that is re&uired but this is re&uiredis that the proposed appea raises a genuine %disputab e issue in the prescribed categor% ofcase' here a c ai! under section 1 to redressa contra$ention of a pro$ision for the protectionof a funda!enta right, Contrar% to thesub!ission of .r, .endes that princip e is as!uch app icab e to an appea under section109(1)( d ) as it is to an appea under section109(1)( c ), t is unnecessar% ho#e$er for theirordships to e press an% opinion on the

app ication of that princip e in this case: that isnot an issue #hich is before the!,

A,,eals on ele(t$on ,et$t$ons

+


4/23

Patterson v Solomon 19603 A,C, 5 9

7% section 0 of the Trinidad and Tobago(Constitution) =rder in Counci 1950 asa!ended b% the Trinidad and Tobago(Constitution) (A!end!ent) =rder in Counci1956: ;(1) A &uestions #hich !a% arise as tothe right of an% person ,,, (ii) to be or re!ain ane ected !e!ber of the egis ati$e Counci shabe referred to the Supre!e Court of theCo on% ,,,;

The appe ant a registered e ector of Trinidadand Tobago sought an in/unction to restrain therespondent #ho #as an e ected !e!ber of theegis ati$e Counci of the co on% a !e!ber ofthe F ecuti$e Counci and the .inister ofFducation and Cu ture fro! c ai!ing to be or inan% #a% acting as the ho der of those offices onthe ground that his seat in the egis ati$eCounci had beco!e $acant under the pro$isionsof section +* (+) ( e ) of the =rder in Counci of

1950 as a!ended b% reason of his ha$ingbeco!e a part% to a contract #ith thego$ern!ent of the co on% for and on account ofthe pub ic ser$ice:-

Held" (1) that section 0 of the =rder in Counciof 1950 as a!ended conte!p ated a referenceto the Supre!e Court b% the egis ati$e Counciitse f and that the appe ant cou d notco!petent % !aintain the proceedings in an%for!,

(2) That the appe ant cou d not escape fro! theconse&uences of that decision b% dropping hisc ai! so far as it re ated to !e!bership of theegis ati$e and F ecuti$e Counci s and confining

it to see


5/23

upon a reference under section 0 of the =rderin Counci e&ua % it cannot ie fro! adeter!ination of that court upon the sa!esub/ect-!atter other#ise than upon such areference, Their ordships do not entertain an%doubt upon the correctness of the decision ofthe Supre!e Court that the appe ant cou d notco!petent % !aintain the proceedings in an%for!, The% on % add that if he cou d no appea#ou d ie, The% find it unnecessar% to add an%obser$ations upon the so!e#hat cr%ptic #ordsin section 0 of the =rder ;in accordance #iththe pro$isions of an% a# in force in the Co on%,;The% cannot afford an% assistance to theappe ant,

A,,eal 1y s,e($al lea+e $n (r$m$nal matters

Esnouf v The Attorney General of Jersey1**+3 * App,Cas, +0

8er ord 7 ac


6/23

race on % to oo< after the% se f, The% arepseudo racists, So sa% the pseudo racists#ho ha$e di$ided the societ% to !aintain thepo itica po#er, And e$en no# the% are doingso in the hope of po itica sur$i$a , The @enBordons #ho #ant to !aintain his!onopo istic ad$antage o$er his co!petitorsin the !edia,

.% brothers and sisters the% co!e in !an%shapes and siKes, The% do not #ant changethe% continue to resist nationa unit%, 4epass a#s to dea #ith cri!ina s the%conde!n us, 4e sign an agree!ent #ith theA!ericans to dea #ith drug ords the%conde!n us, ,,, 4e tr% to change H 8 the%accuse us of racis!, f so!eone gets firedfro! a state enterprise because ,,, he iscorrupt the% screa!, The% doh #antchange the% #ant to continue in their o d#a%s,

The tria /udge he d that the ordinar% istener#ou d ha$e conc uded that in his address the8ri!e .inister #as ca ing .r Bordon a pseudo-racist #ho used racis! to !aintain di$ision insociet% and in order to !aintain a co!!erciaad$antage o$er his co!petitors in the !ediabusiness, The /udge he d this #as defa!ator%and that these #ords #ere spo


7/23

#hate$er oss .r Bordon !a% ha$e e perienced #ou d ha$e been cushioned b% the outpouringof support he recei$ed fro! the !edia ,,, inTrinidad and Tobago3 and abroad , The in/ur%to his reputation #as not irreparab e, The tria

/udgeMs a#ard #as at the higher end of thesca e, An a#ard of L+00 000 #as !oreappropriate and fair to co!pensate .r Bordonand $indicate his reputation bearing in !indthat the atter ob/ecti$e had a read% arge % beenachie$ed, Their ordships consider this #as aba anced su!!ar% of the position,

T!e l$1eral )'r$s,r'den(e o% t!e *r$+yCo'n($l

$inister of %ome Affairs v Fisher 19*03 A,C,+19

Section 11 of the Constitution of 7er!udapro$ides:

;(5) Gor the purposes of this section a

person sha be dee!ed to be ong to7er!uda if that person - ( a ) possesses7er!udian status',,, ( c ) is the #ife of aperson to #ho! either of the foregoingparagraphs of this subsection app ies noti$ing apart fro! such person,,,' or ( d ) isunder the age of 1* %ears and is the chi dstepchi d or chi d adopted in a !annerrecognised b% a# of a person to #ho! an%of the foregoing paragraphs of this subsectionapp ies,;

The "a!aican !other of four i egiti!ate chi drena born in "a!aica !arried a 7er!udian in19 2, The !other and the chi dren too< upresidence #ith the husband in 7er!uda in 19 5,

At a !ateria ti!es the chi dren #ere under 1*,n 19 6 the .inister of abour and !!igrationordered the chi dren to ea$e 7er!uda, The!other and her husband app ied to the Supre!eCourt to &uash the order and for a dec arationthat the chi dren #ere to be dee!ed to be ongto 7er!uda The Supre!e Court refused adec aration on the ground that the chi dren #erei egiti!ate,

=n appea b% the !other and her husband theCourt of Appea he d b% a !a/orit% that thechi dren #ere to be dee!ed to be ong to7er!uda b% $irtue of section 11 (5) ( d ) of theConstitution,

=n appea b% the .inister of o!e Affairs(for!er % the .inister of abour and!!igration) and the .inister of Fducation: -

Held" (1) that a constitutiona instru!ent shou dnot necessari % be construed in the !anner andaccording to the ru es #hich app ied to Acts of8ar ia!ent and therefore the presu!ptionapp icab e to statutes concerning propert%succession and citiKenship that ;chi d; !eant; egiti!ate chi d; did not app %'

(2) That a though the !anner of interpretationof a constitutiona instru!ent shou d gi$e effectto the anguage used recognition shou d a so begi$en to the character and origins of theinstru!ent' that since section 11 of theConstitution #as one of the sections dea ing #iththe funda!enta rights and freedo!s of anindi$idua and subsection (5) ( d ) in its conte t#as a c ear recognition of the unit% of the fa!i %as a group and acceptance that chi dren shou dnot be separated fro! a group #hich be ongedto 7er!uda ;chi d; in the subsection #as not tobe restricted in its !eaning and the !other andher husband #ere entit ed to a dec aration thatthe chi dren #ere dee!ed to be ong to7er!uda,

8er ord 4i berforce at pp, +2*-+29:

4e are concerned #ith a Constitution broughtinto force certain % b% Act of 8ar ia!ent the7er!uda Constitution Act 196 Hnited @ingdo!

but estab ished b% a se f-contained docu!entset out in Schedu e 2 to the 7er!udaConstitution =rder 196* (Hnited @ingdo! S, ,196* >o, 1*2), t can be seen that thisinstru!ent has certain specia characteristics, 1,t is particu ar % in Chapter drafted in a broadand a!p e st% e #hich a%s do#n princip es of#idth and genera it%, 2, Chapter is headed;8rotection of Gunda!enta ights and Greedo!sof the ndi$idua ,; t is igeria andinc uding the Constitutions of !ost Caribbeanterritories #as great % inf uenced b% theFuropean Con$ention for the 8rotection of

u!an ights and Gunda!enta Greedo!s(195+) (C!d, *969), That Con$ention #assigned and ratified b% the Hnited @ingdo! andapp ied to dependent territories inc uding7er!uda, t #as in turn inf uenced b% the Hnited>ations Hni$ersa Dec aration of u!an ightsof 19 *, These antecedents and the for! ofChapter itse f ca for a generousinterpretation a$oiding #hat has been ca ed;the austerit% of tabu ated ega is! ; suitab e togi$e to indi$idua s the fu !easure of thefunda!enta rights and freedo!s referred to, +,Section 11 of the Constitution for!s part ofChapter , t is thus to ;ha$e effect for thepurpose of affording protection to the aforesaidrights and freedo!s; sub/ect on % to suchi!itations contained in it ;being i!itations

designed to ensure that the en/o%!ent of thesaid rights and freedo!s b% an% indi$idua doesnot pre/udice,,, the pub ic interest,;

4hen therefore it beco!es necessar% tointerpret ;the subse&uent pro$isions of; Chapter - in this case section 11 - the &uestion !ustine$itab % be as


8/23

!anner and according to the ru es #hich app %to Acts of 8ar ia!ent is sound, n theirordships $ie# there are t#o possib e ans#ersto this, The first #ou d be to sa% thatrecognising the status of the Constitution as ineffect an Act of 8ar ia!ent there is roo! forinterpreting it #ith ess rigidit% and greatergenerosit% than other Acts such as those #hichare concerned #ith propert% or succession, orcitiKenship, =n the particu ar &uestion this #ou dre&uire the court to accept as a starting pointthe genera presu!ption that ;chi d; !eans; egiti!ate chi d; but to recognise that thispresu!ption !a% be !ore easi % disp aced, Thesecond #ou d be !ore radica : it #ou d be totreat a constitutiona instru!ent such as this assui generis ca ing for princip es of interpretationof its o#n suitab e to its character as a read%described #ithout necessar% acceptance of athe presu!ptions that are re e$ant to egis ationof pri$ate a#,

t is possib e that as regards the &uestion no#

for decision either !ethod #ou d ead to thesa!e resu t, 7ut their ordships prefer thesecond, This is in no #a% to sa% that there areno ru es of a# #hich shou d app % to theinterpretation of a Constitution, A Constitution isa ega instru!ent gi$ing rise a!ongst otherthings to indi$idua rights capab e ofenforce!ent in a court of a#, espect !ust bepaid to the anguage #hich has been used andto the traditions and usages #hich ha$e gi$en!eaning to that anguage, t is &uite consistent#ith this and #ith the recognition that ru es ofinterpretation !a% app % to ta


9/23

person #ho had been a#fu % detained but in1965 the /udges of Trinidad and Tobagoadopted the Fng ish "udges u es of 196inc uding Appendi A, The appe ant #as granteda dec aration in the igh Court that hisconstitutiona rights had been infringed but therespondents appea to the Court of Appea ofTrinidad and Tobago #as a o#ed,

=n appea b% the appe ant to the "udiciaCo!!ittee: -

Held" a o#ing the appea (1) that section 2 (c)(ii) of the Constitution of 1962 secured the rightof a detained person to access to a a#%er#ithout de a% independent % of an% rightsen/o%ed under the a# at the co!!ence!ent ofthe Construction,

(2) That in section 1 of the Constitution therights dec ared to ha$e been en/o%ed in Trinidadand Tobago referred not on % to de /ure rights ofthe indi$idua but to rights en/o%ed b% hi! de

facto as a resu t of sett ed e ecuti$e po ic% orthe !anner in #hich ad!inistrati$e or /udiciadiscretion had been e ercised' that sinceAppendi A to the "udges u es specifica %dec ared that the ru es did not affect theprincip e that an indi$idua shou d be ab e toconsu t his a#%er at e$er% stage of anin$estigation the action of the /udges ofTrinidad and Tobago in adopting Appendi Asho#ed that the right to consu t a a#%er hadbeco!e a !atter of sett ed practice andaccording % the appe ant s right #as protectedunder section 1 as #e as under section 2 (c)(ii),

(+) That section + in effect ensured that neither

section 1 nor section 2 repea ed an% ru e of a#app icab e in the countr% at the co!!ence!entof the Constitution' that according % the onusa% on the respondents to sho# that the sett edpractice of a o#ing an arrested person toconsu t a a#%er in accordance #ith the princip ee pressed in the "udges u es #as contrar% tothe a# at the ti!e of the co!!ence!ent of theConstitution' that the respondents cou d notdischarge and had not discharged that burden'and that since there had been an unreasonab ede a% before the appe ant #as a o#ed access tohis a#%er his constitutiona right had beencontra$ened,

*er c riam. Contra$entions b% the po ice of an%of the hu!an rights or funda!enta freedo!s ofthe indi$idua that are recognised b% Chapter 1of the Constitution fa s&uare % #ithin #hat hasbeen he d b% the "udicia Co!!ittee in +ahara,v. Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago (!o.) 19 93 A,C, +*5 +96 to be the a!bit of theprotection afforded b% section 6 $iK,contra$entions ;b% the state or b% so!e otherpub ic authorit% endo#ed b% a# #ith coerci$epo#ers,;

8er ord Dip oc< at pp, +- :

ees ",A, a though he considered that theconduct of the respondents !ight #e ha$ebeen a contra$ention of the appe ant sconstitutiona rights under section 1 ( a ) orsection 1 ( b ) found it unnecessar% to !a


10/23

Their ordships do not doubt that if the appeahad co!e before the Court of Appea after the

/udg!ent of the "udicia Co!!ittee in +ahara,instead of before neither ees ",A, nor either ofthe other !e!bers of the Court ( %ata i C,",and Corbin ",A,) #ho e pressed their agree!ent#ith his /udg!ent #ou d ha$e adopted as aground for a o#ing the appea that section 6 ofthe Constitution had no app ication tocontra$entions of hu!an rights or funda!entafreedo!s b% the po ice,

Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v&hiteman 19913 2 A,C, 2 0

7% paragraph *( a ) of the Fng ish "udges u es196 adopted b% the /udges in Trinidad andTobago in 1965 a person in custod% #as to bea o#ed to co!!unicate #ith his ega ad$iserand paragraph *( b ) pro$ided that persons incustod% shou d be infor!ed ora % of the rightsand faci ities a$ai ab e to the! and that notices

describing the! shou d be disp a%ed at po icestations and dra#n to their attention, Section of the Constitution of the epub ic of Trinidadand Tobago 19 6 recognised and dec aredfunda!enta rights and freedo!s inc uding theright of the indi$idua to the protection of thea#, Section 5(2) pro$ided that 8ar ia!ent !ightnot:

;( c ) depri$e a person #ho has been arrestedor detained , , , (ii) of the right to retain andinstruct #ithout de a% a ega ad$iser of hiso#n choice and to ho d co!!unication #ithhi! , , , ( h ) depri$e a person of the right tosuch procedura pro$isions as are necessar%for the purpose of gi$ing effect and protection

to the aforesaid rights and freedo!s,;The app icant #as arrested b% po ice officers anddetained but he #as e$entua % re eased#ithout charge, e app ied to the igh Court forredress b% #a% of originating !otion pursuant tosection 1 (1) of the Constitution a eging intera ia that #hi e in custod% he had not beeninfor!ed of his right to co!!unicate #ith aa#%er, t #as agreed that the /udge shou d firstdecide #hether a person upon arrest ordetention b% the po ice had a constitutiona rightto be infor!ed of his constitutiona right toretain and instruct #ithout de a% a ega ad$iserof his o#n choice and to ho d co!!unication#ith hi!, The /udge dis!issed the !otionho ding that there #as no such constitutionaright but the Court of Appea re$ersed thatdecision,

=n appea b% the Attorne%-Benera and theCo!!issioner of 8o ice to the "udiciaCo!!ittee:-

Held dis!issing the appea that section 5(2)( c )(ii) of the Constitution conferred on a personarrested or detained the right to co!!unicate

#ith a ega ad$iser but since that right #ou dbe ineffecti$e in certain circu!stances un essthere #as pro$ision for a procedure #hereb% he#as infor!ed of it section 5(2)( h ) ga$e hi! theright to a procedura pro$ision such as thatpro$ided b% paragraph *( b) of Appendi 7 to the"udges u es 196 and the right to ha$e thatprocedure fo o#ed' that in an% e$ent theprocedure prescribed in paragraph *( b) hadbeco!e a sett ed practice fo o#ed before theConstitution of 19 6 ca!e into operation and soit #as part of the protection of the a# affordedto the indi$idua under section ( b) of theConstitution' and that therefore on the properconstruction of section 5(2)( h ) of theConstitution and on the basis of a sett edpractice a person arrested or detained had aconstitutiona right to be infor!ed of his right toco!!unicate #ith a ega ad$iser as soon aspossib e and before interrogation' that furtherit #as the dut% of po ice officers to ensure hisunderstanding of his right and the !ere disp a%of notices in the po ice station #as insufficient,

8er ord @eith at pp, 2 -2 *:

The anguage of a Constitution fa s to beconstrued not in a narro# and ega istic #a%but broad % and purposi$e % so as to gi$e effectto its spirit and this is particu ar % true of thosepro$isions #hich are concerned #ith theprotection of hu!an rights, n this case the rightconferred b% section 5(2)( c )(ii) upon a person#ho has been arrested and detained na!e %the right to co!!unicate #ith a ega ad$iser iscapab e in so!e situations of being of itt e $a ueif the person is not infor!ed of the right, .an%persons !ight be &uite ignorant that the% hadthis constitutiona right or if the% did


11/23

=n Apri 1 19 5 the appe ant a barristerengaged in a case in the igh Court #asco!!itted to prison for se$en da%s for conte!pton the order of the /udge, The appe anti!!ediate % app ied e parte b% notice of!otion to the igh Court under section 6 of theConstitution na!ing the Attorne%-Benera asrespondent and c ai!ing redress forcontra$ention of his right protected b% section 1(a ) of the Constitution not to be depri$ed of hisibert% sa$e b% due process of a#, =n "u % 2+19 5 Scott ", dis!issed the !otion and orderedthe appe ant to ser$e his ter! of i!prison!ent,After ser$ing the ter! the appe ant appea edfro! the decision of Scott ", to the Court ofAppea , 4hi e that appea #as pending heobtained ea$e to appea to the "udiciaCo!!ittee of the 8ri$% Counci against theco!!itta order of Apri 1 , =n "u % 2 19 6the "udicia Co!!ittee &uashed the order on thegrounds that there had been a funda!entafai ure of natura /ustice in that before !a


12/23

o$erthro# other#ise than b% a#fu !eans theBo$ern!ent of Ce% on b% a# estab ished andsentenced the! to ten %ears rigorousi!prison!ent and forfeiture of a goods the!ini!u! prescribed b% the Act >o, 1 of 1962,

=n appea to the 8ri$% Counci on the groundthat the egis ation of 1962 #as u tra $ires

Held" that the Acts directed as the% #ere to thetria of particu ar prisoners charged #ithparticu ar offences on a particu ar occasionin$o $ed a usurpation and infringe!ent b% theegis ature of /udicia po#ers inconsistent #iththe #ritten Constitution of Ce% on #hich #hi enot in ter!s $esting /udicia functions in the

/udiciar% !anifested an intention to secure inthe /udiciar% a freedo! fro! po itica egis ati$eand e ecuti$e contro and in effect eftuntouched the /udicia s%ste! estab ished b% theCharter of "ustice 1*++, The si ence of theConstitution as to the $esting of /udicia po#er#as consistent #ith its re!aining #here it #as

and inconsistent #ith an% intention that it shou dpass to or be shared b% the e ecuti$e or theegis ature, The Acts #ere according % u tra $iresand $oid and the con$ictions cou d not stand,

T!e not so l$1eral )'r$s,r'den(e o% t!e *r$+yCo'n($l

obinson v The Queen 19*53 A,C, 956

The defendant #as arrested in August 19 * andcharged #ith !urder, e did not app % for egaaid, The !ain prosecution #itness ha$ingdisappeared the case #as ad/ourned on 19occasions on si of #hich the tria date had beenfi ed and the defendant #as usua %

represented b% t#o counse #ho #ere on therecord, n "anuar% 19*1 the tria #as definite %fi ed for a date in .arch #ith consent of thedefendant s counse , 4hen the tria began in theCircuit Court Di$ision of the Bun Court theCro#n s principa #itness #as present but thedefendant s counse #ere absent, n&uiriesre$ea ed that the% intended to be there thefo o#ing da% and the /udge e$entua % startedthe tria , The ne t !orning one of thedefendant s counse app ied for per!ission forthe! both to #ithdra# because the% had notbeen fu % paid and for an ad/ourn!ent for aega aid assign!ent, The /udge offered that

counse the ega aid assign!ent but he dec inedit, 7oth app ications #ere refused b% the /udge#ho feared that the #itness !ight not bea$ai ab e if the hearing #as ad/ourned, Thedefendant s counse #ithdre# and the triacontinued #ithout the defendant being ega %represented, e #as con$icted of !urder andsentenced to death, e app ied to the Court ofAppea of "a!aica for ea$e to appea againstcon$iction and sentence but his app ications#ere refused,

=n the defendant s appea to the "udiciaCo!!ittee:-

Held" dis!issing the appea ( ord Scar!an andord Fd!und-Da$ies dissenting) that the rightunder the pro$isions of the Constitution of"a!aica to ega representation of choice #asnot an abso ute right in that it #as notnecessar% for an ad/ourn!ent a #a%s to begranted in order to ensure that an% defendant ina cri!ina !atter #ho desired egarepresentation #as du % represented' that ine ercising his discretion #hether or not to grantan ad/ourn!ent for that purpose the /udge hadto consider other re e$ant !atters inc uding thepresent and future a$ai abi it% of #itnesses andsince the absence of ega representation #ascaused b% the conduct of the defendant scounse and a so b% the defendant s fai ure toensure that the% #ere paid #ithin a reasonab eti!e before tria or other#ise to app % inad$ance for ega aid the /udge s refusa toad/ourn the tria to enab e the defendant to

instruct an a ternati$e ega representati$e didnot depri$e the defendant of his funda!entaright under section 20(6)( c ) of the Constitutionto be per!itted to defend hi!se f b% a egarepresentati$e of his o#n choice e$en thoughas a resu t he #as unrepresented at his tria fora capita offence' and that in a thecircu!stances no !iscarriage of /ustice hadoccurred and the defendant had been proper %con$icted of !urder,

Decision of the Court of Appea of "a!aicaaffir!ed,

.ollymore v Attorney General of Trinidadand Tobago 19 03 A,C, 5+*

The appe ants #ere in 1965 e!p o%ees of anoi co!pan% and the% #ith other fe o#e!p o%ees in the co!pan% #ere !e!bers of aregistered trade union, This union bargainedon beha f of its !e!bers #ith the oi co!pan%on &uestions of pa% and conditions, n .arch1965 the union desired to a ter the thencurrent co ecti$e agree!ent on these !attersand sub!itted to the co!pan% a state!ent ofthe changes re&uired, >egotiations fo o#edbut #ithout an% agree!ent resu ting and in"u % 1965 the co!pan% bro


13/23

infringed their freedo! of association dec aredb% section 1 of the Constitution of Trinidad andTobago1 to be one of the funda!entafreedo!s ;#hich ha$e e isted and shacontinue to e ist; and the% re ied on section 2#hich pro$ided that no a# shou d ;abrogateabridge or infringe ,,,; that right, The% app iedto the igh Court of "ustice of Trinidad andTobago for an order dec aring that thendustria Stabi isation Act 1965 #as u tra$ires the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobagoand #as nu and $oid and of no effect, Theigh Court dis!issed the app ication and the%appea ed to the Court of Appea #ho uphe dthe decision of the igh Court, =n appea tothe 8ri$% Counci :-

Held" dis!issing the appea that the ndustriaStabi isation Act 1965 undoubted % abridgedthe freedo! to bargain co ecti$e % and thefreedo! to stri


14/23

There is a so no doubt that the Act abridges thefreedo! to stri


15/23

Dece!ber the Court of Appea of "a!aicadis!issed their app ication for reasons to begi$en ater, The Bo$ernor-Benera fai ed to refertheir case to the "a!aican 8ri$% Counci forad$ice on #hether the app icants shou d bee ecuted or reprie$ed in accordance #ithsections 90 and 91 of the Constitution, 1 The firstapp icant petitioned the nter-A!ericanCo!!ission on u!an ights (; ,A,C, , ,;) in19*1 a though the "a!aican Bo$ern!ent #asnot a#are of that unti 19*+, n Septe!ber19* fo o#ing a re&uest the Court of Appeaga$e its reasons for dis!issing the app icationfor ea$e to appea , n =ctober the ,A,C, , ,re/ected the first app icant s sub!ission butreco!!ended that the death sentence beco!!uted, n "anuar% 19*6 he petitioned theHnited >ations u!an ights Co!!ittee(;H,>, , ,C,;) under the nternationa Co$enanton Ci$i and 8o itica ights, The app icantsodged notice of intention to petition for speciaea$e to appea to the "udicia Co!!ittee of the8ri$% Counci in .arch and specia ea$e #as

refused in "u %, n >o$e!ber the "a!aican 8ri$%Counci considered the app icants case for thefirst ti!e but did not accede to a re&uest fro!the H,>, , ,C, for a sta% of e ecution, A #arrantfor the e ecution of the sentences passed on theapp icants #as issued in Gebruar% 19* , The%#ere transferred to specia conde!ned ce sad/acent to the ga o#s but the Bo$ernor-Benera issued a sta% of e ecution, n "u % the,A,C, , , infor!ed the go$ern!ent that theapp icants had suffered a denia of /ustice andre&uested that their sentences be co!!uted,The "a!aican 8ri$% Counci reconsidered the!atter in =ctober 19* and in Gebruar% 19** asecond #arrant of e ecution #as issued, Theapp icants #ere again transferred to the

conde!ned ce s but a sta% #as granted, n.arch 19** the H,>, , ,C, decided that thecase #as ad!issib e and in Apri 19*9 he d thatcertain artic es of the nternationa Co$enanthad been $io ated and reco!!endedco!!utation of the sentences, Afterreconsideration b% the "a!aican 8ri$% Counci inSepte!ber 1990 a third #arrant of e ecution#as issued in Gebruar% 1991 and the% #ereagain !o$ed to the conde!ned ce s, The%app ied to the Supre!e Court for redress undersection 25 of the Constitution and e ecution#as sta%ed, The Gu Court of the Supre!eCourt dis!issed the app ication and the Court ofAppea of "a!aica uphe d that decision,

=n the app icants appea to the "udiciaCo!!ittee: -

Held a o#ing the appea (1) that prior to"a!aican independence the ega it% of a ongde a%ed e ecution cou d ha$e been &uestionedand app %ing Fng ish co!!on a# e ecutionsta%ed as an abuse of process' that section1 (2) of the Constitution !ere % authoriseddescriptions of punish!ent #hich cou d bei!posed b% the court and did not pre$ent the

circu!stances in #hich the e ecuti$e intendedto carr% out the sentence fro! infringing section1 (1)' that e ecution shou d fo o# as s#ift % aspracticab e after sentence of death sub/ect toa o#ance of a reasonab e ti!e for appea andconsideration of a reprie$e and an appe ateprocedure that per!itted pro onged de a% forta


16/23

These !en are not a one in their suffering forthere are no# 2+ prisoners in death ro# #hoha$e been a#aiting e ecution for !ore than 10%ears and *2 prisoners #ho ha$e been a#aitinge ecution for !ore than fi$e %ears, t is againstthis disturbing bac


17/23

app ication to the "udicia Co!!ittee of the 8ri$%Counci it !ust be !ade as soon as possib e asboth the ru es of the "udicia Co!!ittee of the8ri$% Counci and the Bo$ernor-Benera snstructions re&uire in #hich case it shou d bepossib e to dispose of it #ithin si !onths of theCourt of Appea hearing or #ithin a further si!onths if there is to be a fu hearing of theappea , n this #a% it shou d be possib e toco!p ete the entire do!estic appea process#ithin appro i!ate % t#o %ears, Their ordshipsdo not purport to set do#n an% rigid ti!etab ebut to indicate #hat appear to the! to berea istic targets #hich if achie$ed #ou d entai$er% !uch shorter de a% than has occurred inrecent cases and cou d not be considered toin$o $e inhu!an or degrading punish!ent orother treat!entEE

These considerations ead their ordships to theconc usion that in an% case in #hich e ecution isto ta


18/23

tribuna in the constitution of #hich it had no$oice, t #ou d be a ien to the spirit #ith #hichthe prea!b e to the Statute of 4est!inster isinstinct to concede an%thing ess than the #idesta!p itude of po#er to the Do!inion under s,101 of the 7ritish >orth A!erica Act, That thea# shou d be one and the sa!e for a its

citiKens #as on % attainab e if s, 101 no#authoriKed the estab ish!ent of a court #ithfina and e c usi$e appe ate /urisdiction,

Ibralebbe v * 196 3 A,C, 900

The /urisdiction of the 7oard to entertain appea sfro! Ce% on in cri!ina !atters sti e ists andhas not been abrogated b% Ce% on s attain!entof independence in 19 , >o#here is there to befound in the instru!ents e!p o%ed to bringabout independence - the Ce% on ndependenceAct 19 and the se$era =rders in Councisetting up the Ce% on Constitution - an%reference to the 8ri$% Counci appea itscontinuance or its e tinguish!ent nor is there

an%thing in those !easures #hich b% necessar%i!p ication puts an end to the prerogati$e rightto hear appea s #hich e isted before the date ofindependence,

The =rder in Counci #hich gi$es effect to a"udicia Co!!ittee report is a /udicia order - itis in e$er%thing but for! the e&ui$a ent of aega /udg!ent, t is an ;order or decree ,,, onappea ; (section 21 of the "udicia Co!!itteeAct 1*++) and is !andator% in its directions tothose #ho! it affects b% $irtue of the pro$isionsof section 21, The co!p e!ent to the in/unctioncontained in section 21 of the Act of 1*++ is forCe% on the sections of the oca egis ation -section 0 of the Courts =rdinance and section

++ of the Cri!ina 8rocedure Code - #hichestab ish that the 8ri$% Counci appea is part ofthe /udicia s%ste! of Ce% on, t #ou d be high %unrea to ignore the significance of the continuedpresence of pro$isions in the 1956 e$isedFdition of the egis ati$e Fnact!ents of Ce% on#hich recognise the right of appea to the 8ri$%Counci ,

According % since the structure of the courts inCe% on for dea ing #ith ega !atters and thes%ste! of appea s e isting at the date ofindependence ha$e not been affected b% an% ofthe instru!ents that conferred that status itfo o#s that inas!uch as the =rder in Counci!ade upon report of the "udicia Co!!ittee isthe effecti$e /udg!ent to dispose of andi!p e!ent the Co!!ittee s decision of anappea the po#er to !a


19/23

egis ation conceded b% the 19 6 =rder, There isno po#er to participate in the go$ern!ent ofCe% on through the !ediu! of =rders inCounci since the contro and direction of thego$ern!ent of the territor% are in the charge ofthe Cabinet of .inisters responsib e to the8ar ia!ent of Ce% on and in the Bo$ernor-Benera according to his constitutiona po#ers,7ut the structure of courts for dea ing #ith ega!atters and the s%ste! of appea s e isting atthe date of independence ha$e not been affectedb% an% of the instru!ents that conferred thatstatus and it fo o#s that inas!uch as an =rderin Counci !ade upon report of the "udiciaCo!!ittee is the effecti$e /udg!ent to disposeof and i!p e!ent the Co!!ittee s decision ofan appea the po#er to !a


20/23

of section 10 and neither ninet% da%sM de a% norappro$a b% referendu! #as re&uired,

The re e$ant pro$ision of 8eop eMs a# * of19 9 reads as fo o#s:

R2, (1) As fro! the prescribed da% appea s toer .a/est% in Counci are abo ished and adecisions of the "udicia Co!!ittee of the8ri$% Counci #hether gi$en before or afterthe prescribed da% sha ha$e no bindingega force in Brenada,(2) n the foregoing subsection Rtheprescribed da%M is 1+th .arch 19 9,M

4hate$er !a% be argued about (i) the origina$a idit% or continued effecti$eness of 8eop eMsa# * of 19 9 (ii) its subse&uent continuanceb% the Bo$ernor-Benera in his proc a!ation ofth >o$e!ber 19*+ !ade after the !i itar%

inter$ention and (iii) such reser$ations aboutconstitutiona pro$isions re ating to the /udicias%ste! as he purported to !ao$e!ber 19* dec aring the ndependenceConstitution to be once !ore in force thatConstitution #as in genera treated asoperati$e, Benera e ections pursuant to itspro$isions #ere he d and a ne# 8ar ia!ent #ass#orn in b% the end of Dece!ber 19* ,

The first a# that the ne# 8ar ia!ent passed#as Act 1 of 19*5 of #hich the re e$ant enactingpro$ision #as:

R2, Gor the a$oidance of doubt it is hereb%enacted that the fo o#ing a#s ru es andproc a!ations are in force and sha re!ainin force unti other#ise enacted: (i) a# andu es !ade b% the 8eop eMs e$o utionar%

Bo$ern!ent,,,M The Act recei$ed the assent of the Bo$ernor-Benera on 21st Gebruar% 19*5, A though thereis not a!ong the papers odged #ith the petitiona certificate b% the Spea


21/23

, The "udges of the Court other than the8resident sha be appointed or re!o$ed b% a!a/orit% $ote of a of the !e!bers of theCo!!ission,

*, The 8resident sha ta


22/23

(d) the ter!ination of appoint!ents inaccordance #ith the pro$isions of thisAgree!ent, (2) The Co!!ission sha in accordance #iththe egu ations e ercise discip inar% controo$er "udges of the Court other than the8resident and o$er officia s and e!p o%ees ofthe Court,

, The ter! of office of !e!bers of theCo!!ission other than the Chair!an sha bethree %ears but such !e!bers sha be e igib efor re-appoint!ent for another ter! of office,

5, The !e!bers of the Co!!ission referredto in paragraph 1(b) (c) (d) (f) and (g) shabe appointed b% etter under the hand of the8resident,

6, f the office of a !e!ber of theCo!!ission other than the Chair!an is $acant

or the ho der thereof is unab e to perfor! thefunctions of his office a person !a% beappointed to perfor! the functions of that officefor the une pired ter! of the ho der of the officeor unti the ho der resu!es office,

, Sub/ect to paragraph 1+ of this Artic e theCo!!ission sha not be:

(a) Dis&ua ified fro! the transaction ofbusiness b% reason of an% $acanc% in its!e!bership and its proceedings sha not bein$a idated b% the presence or participation ofan% person not entit ed to be present or toparticipate in those proceedings'

(b) Dis&ua ified fro! the transaction ofbusiness nor its proceedings in$a idated b%reason of the nonNreceipt b% a !e!ber of theCo!!ission of a notice for a !eeting of theCo!!ission,

*, The Co!!ission !a% b% directions in#riting and sub/ect to such conditions as itthin


23/23

attains the age of se$ent%-t#o %ears e ceptthat he sha continue in office if necessar% fora further period not e ceeding three !onths toenab e hi! to de i$er /udg!ent or to do an%other thing in re ation to an% proceedings part-heard b% hi!,

, A "udge !a% be re!o$ed fro! office on %for inabi it% to perfor! the functions of hisoffice #hether arising fro! i ness or an% othercause or for !isbeha$iour and sha not be sore!o$ed e cept in accordance #ith thepro$isions of this Artic e,

5, (1) Sub/ect to Artic e I paragraph 5the 8resident sha be re!o$ed fro! office b%the eads of Bo$ern!ent on thereco!!endation of the Co!!ission if the&uestion of the re!o$a of the 8resident hasbeen referred b% the eads of Bo$ern!ent to atribuna and the tribuna has ad$ised theCo!!ission that the 8resident ought to bere!o$ed fro! office for inabi it% or !isbeha$iour

referred to in paragraph ,(2) Sub/ect to Artic e I paragraph 6 a

"udge other than the 8resident sha be re!o$edfro! office b% the Co!!ission if the &uestion ofthe re!o$a of the "udge has been referred b%the Co!!ission to a tribuna ' and the tribunahas ad$ised the Co!!ission that the "udgeought to be re!o$ed fro! office for inabi it% or!isbeha$iour referred to in paragraph ,

6, f at east three eads of Bo$ern!ent inthe case of the 8resident /oint % represent to theother eads of Bo$ern!ent or if theCo!!ission decides in the case of an% other"udge that the &uestion of re!o$ing the

8resident or the "udge fro! office ought to bein$estigated then -

(a) the eads of Bo$ern!ent or theCo!!ission sha appoint a tribuna #hich shaconsist of a chair!an and not ess than t#oother !e!bers se ected b% the eads ofBo$ern!ent or the Co!!ission as the case!a% be after such consu tations as !a% beconsidered e pedient fro! a!ong persons #hoho d or ha$e he d office as a "udge of a court ofun i!ited /urisdiction in ci$i and cri!ina!atters in so!e part of the Co!!on#ea th orin a State e ercising ci$i a# /urisprudenceco!!on to Contracting 8arties or a courtha$ing /urisdiction in appea s fro! an% suchcourt' and

(b) The tribuna sha en&uire into the !atterand ad$ise the eads of Bo$ern!ent or theCo!!ission as the case !a% be #hether ornot the 8resident or the "udge ought to bere!o$ed fro! office,

, The pro$isions of an% a# re ating to theho ding of co!!issions of in&uir% in the .e!berState of the Caribbean Co!!unit% #here the

in&uir% is he d sha app % as near % as !a% be inre ation to tribuna s appointed under paragraph6 of this Artic e or as the conte t !a% re&uireto the !e!bers thereof as the% app % in re ationto Co!!issions or Co!!issioners appointedunder that a#,

*, f the &uestion of re!o$ing the 8residentor an% other "udge of the Court fro! office hasbeen referred to a tribuna under paragraph 6 ofthis Artic e the eads of Bo$ern!ent in thecase of the 8resident or the Co!!ission in thecase of an% other "udge of the Court !a%suspend such "udge fro! perfor!ing thefunctions of his office and an% such suspension!a% at an% ti!e be re$o

Administration of Justice in Jamaica

Documents

Transcript of Administration of Justice in Jamaica