June 8
BARBADOS:
Privy Council death sentence judgement expected soon
Barbadians can expect a decision soon in the case of Boyce & Joseph v The
Queen now under appeal before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
in London.
This is the word from legal sources in Britain who are familiar with the
landmark case which has been considered the most important one in
post-colonial Barbados. They have indicated that the final decision should
be handed down possibly before months end.
The Privy Council is this countrys final Court of Appeal, and it has been
sitting to determine whether the mandatory death sentence on conviction of
murder was cruel and unusual punishment, unconstitutional and inconsistent
with Barbados international obligations.
When this case was first heard by a 5-member panel of the Privy Council in
December 2003, the Court requested that it be re-argued before an expanded
panel, given its serious implications for Commonwealth Caribbean
constitutional interpretation, the sovereignty of Parliament to make laws
for peace, order and good government, and the scope of national
self-determination.
For the re-hearing, the case was consolidated with Matthew v The State
from Trinidad & Tobago and Watson v The Queen from Jamaica, both on appeal
on identical points of law. At the December hearing, the Attorney General
of Barbados, Mia Mottley, sought and obtained intervener status to present
arguments on behalf of the Government of Barbados, on the grounds that
laws on capital punishment in Barbados were consistent with international
law and Barbados international legal obligations. She successfully argued
then that significance for Barbados, of any determination in this matter,
went way beyond criminal law and the death penalty. It was the assertion
of the Government of Barbados that while the issue of the mandatory death
sentence on conviction of murder had brought the matter before the Law
Lords, the implications went to the very heart of self governance itself.
In fact, Miss Mottley, during the December 2003 sessions, had contended
that striking down of a section of the Barbados Constitution, as proposed
by counsel for the appellants in relation to Section 26 (the existing laws
clause) or drastic modification, expressed or implied, would evoke severe
and disruptive national legal, financial, administrative and social
implications.
Retention of the death penalty was among other critical laws saved at
Barbados Independence in 1966, including the Police Act, Prison Act,
Customs Act and instruments governing the Government Industrial Schools
and juvenile penal systems. Further, the Government of Barbados firmly
holds to the fundamental principle that it is Parliament which has
responsibility for amending laws.
Appellant counsel relied heavily on the recently decided case of Roodall v
The Queen, interpretation of the Trinidad & Tobago 1962 Constitution as
amended in 1974, the power to modify legislation within context of the
Constitution and the doctrine of Separation of Powers.
Intervener status in the appeal cases before the Privy Council to
determine constitutionality of the mandatory death sentence on conviction
of murder was sought by the Government of Barbados, under section 79(a) of
the Barbados Constitution, which vests in the Attorney General all matters
pertaining to the conduct of Barbados international obligations under
international law.
Appellants had expressly charged that the mandatory penalty breached
Barbados human rights international obligations. Barbados has always
respected its international obligations. With regard to the Inter-American
Commission, it was significant that the Inter-American Commission had
referred Barbados to the Inter-American Court for an advisory opinion.
Barbados had simply said that it questioned the interpretation because
there was no breach of the Convention when Barbados signed and ratified
it. If there had been, a reservation would have been entered by Barbados.
(source: The Barbados Advocate)
