Homicide - statutory reintroduction of felony murder rule - no infringement of constitutional rights
Khan v State of Trinidad and Tobago: PC (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Millett, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe): 20 November 2003
The defendant was convicted of murder by virtue of section 2A of the Criminal Law Act 1979 (as inserted by section 2 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1997), which reintroduced in Trinidad and Tobago the substance of the common law felony murder rule, following its abolition as result of the removal of the distinction between felonies and misdemeanours.
His appeal against conviction was dismissed.
He appealed to the Privy Council, contending that section 2A infringed his rights under section 4(a) of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago not to be deprived of life or liberty 'except by due process of law', under section 4(b) to the 'protection of the law' and under section 5(2) (f)(i) 'to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law'.
Peter Thornton QC and Rebecca Trowler (instructed by Russell Jones & Walker) for the defendant; Sir Godfray Le Quesne QC, Peter Knox and Tom Poole (instructed by Charles Russell) for the state.
Held, dismissing the appeal by a majority (Lord Steyn and Lord Millett dissenting), that the statutory reintroduction of a rule that had long formed part of the law of Trinidad and Tobago could not be categorised as so arbitrary, unreasonable or oppressive as to infringe the constitutional guarantees of 'due process of law' and 'protection of the law'; and that, although the elements of the offence might be different from those of murder, it still placed on the prosecution all the duty of proving guilt and therefore did not infringe the presumption of innocence.
Homicide - statutory death penalty for murder - statute to be construed as imposing maximum rather than mandatory sentence
Roodal v The State of Trinidad and Tobago: PC (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Millett, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe): 20 November 2003
The defendant was convicted of murder in Trinidad and Tobago.
A mandatory death sentence was imposed under section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1925.
His appeal against sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal because, although section 4 imposed a 'cruel and unusual punishment' in breach of section 5(2)(b) of the constitution, it was saved as an 'existing law' by virtue of section 6 and did not require to be modified under section 5(1) of the Constitution Act 1976.
The defendant appealed to the Privy Council.
Edward Fitzgerald QC and Keir Starmer QC with Frank Solomon SC, Desmond Allum SC, Douglas Mendes, Gregory Delzin and Rajiv Persad (all five of the Trinidad and Tobago Bar) (instructed by Simons Muirhead & Burton) for the defendant; Sir Godfray Le Quesne QC, Peter Knox and Tom Poole (instructed by Charles Russell) for the state.
Held (Lord Millett and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry dissenting), that the constitutional provisions permitted a two-stage approach whereby it was first determined whether section 4 of the 1925 Act could be modified under section 5(1) of the 1976 Act so as to conform with the constitution, and section 6 of the constitution only applied if such modification were not possible; that since section 4 of the 1925 Act could be interpreted by virtue of sections 64 and 68 of the Interpretation Act 1962 as imposing a maximum rather than a fixed penalty, it was possible to apply it in such a way as did not infringe section 5 of the constitution; and that, accordingly, the mandatory death sentence should be set aside and the issue of sentencing remitted for reconsideration by the trial judge.
No comments yet