ish and steve lose section 34 case
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
1/68
THEFOLLOWINGISTHEJUDGMENT
REPUBLICOFTRINIDADANDTOBAGO
INTHE
HIGH
COURT
OF
JUSTICE
Cv.#.2012/04052
BETWEEN
STEVEFERGUSONCLAIMANT
AND
THEATTORNEYGENERALOFTRINIDADANDTOBAGO
THEDIRECTOROFPUBLICPROSECUTIONSDEFENDANTS
BEFORETHEHONOURABLEMADAMEJUSTICEM.DEANARMORER
APPEARANCES
Mr.E.Fitzgerald,Q.C.,Mr.F.Hosein,S.C.appearedonbehalfofSteveFerguson.
Mr.M.Beloff,Q.C.,Ms.N.Singh,MsC.HugginsinstructedbyMr.R.Otwayappearedonbehalfof
MaritimeLifeCaribbeanLtd.
Ms.S.Chote,S.C.,Mr.V.DeonarineinstructedbyMs.N.AvirajappearedonbehalfofAmeerEdoo.
Lord Pannick,Q.C.,Mr.G. Ramdeen, instructed byMs. A.Mamchan appeared on behalf of the
AttorneyGeneral.
Mr.
A
Newman,
Q.C.,
Ms.
E.
Honeywell,
S.C.,
Mr.
S.
Parsad,
Ms.
N.
Nabbie,
Mr.
C.
Chaitoo
instructed
byMs.Z.HaynesandMs.A.RamsookappearedonbehalfoftheAttorneyGeneral.
Mr.I.Benjamin,Mr.S.WonginstructedbyMs.N.JagnarineappearedonbehalfoftheDPP.
TABLEOFCONTENTS
Introduction.3
ProceduralHistory..6
TheEvidence..8
Facts10
Submissions27
Law
...38
PresumptionofConstitutionality.38
TheSeparationofPower:GeneralPrinciples.41
LegitimateExpectation..92
DueProcessofLaw.114
PopulistPressure.125
AbuseofProcess.128
AdmissibilityofMaterialfromtheHansard..135
ReasoningandDecision137
AppendixI..172
AppendixII..175
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
2/68
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION1.Thisclaimhaspopularlybeenreferredtoasthesection34matter.Itwould,however,bemore
appropriately labeledthe repealof section34 since it isagainst the repealof section34of the
AdministrationofJustice(IndictableProceedings)ActNo.20of2011(theAct),thattheclaimanthas
institutedtheseproceedings.
2.Bythisclaim,underPart56oftheCivilProceedingsRules(CPR)theclaimant,SteveFerguson,alleges
thattherightsguaranteedtohimbysection4(a)and(b)oftheConstitutionofTrinidadandTobago
(theConstitution)havebeencontravened.
3.InDecember2011theAdministrationofJustice(IndictableProceedings)Act(TheAct)wasenacted
byboth
Houses
of
Parliament
and
received
the
assent
of
His
Excellency
the
President
on
the
16th
of
December2011.TheActwhichcontainedaprovisionthatitwouldenterintoforceuponPresidential
ProclamationprovidedforsubstantialchangestothecriminaljusticesysteminTrinidadandTobago.
Included intheActwassection34whichprescribedalimitationperiodof10yearsinrespectofall
offenceswiththeexceptionofthoselistedinSchedule6totheAct.
4.InAugust,2012,thethenMinisterofJusticeapproachedCabinetseekingtheearlyproclamationof
afewsectionsoftheAct,amongthemwassection34.FollowingtheapprovalofCabinetsection34
wasproclaimedon28thAugust,2012andbecamelawon31stAugust,2012.
5.Thenwerethefloodgatesthrownopenwithapplicationsseekingdeclarationsofinnocenceand
dismissal
of
criminal
charges.
Among
them
was
the
claimants
application
together
with
those
of
personsaccusedinthehistoricPiarcocorruptioncases.
6.TheDirectorofPublicProsecutionswasalarmedattheeffectofsection34.Hedrewhisconcerns
to theattentionof theAttorneyGeneral. InearlySeptember2012, therewasahurried return to
Parliament.TheAdministrationofJustice(IndictableProceedings)AmendmentAct(theAmendment
Act)wasenactedwithaspecial3/5thParliamentarymajority.TheAmendmentActwhichrepealed
Section34withretroactiveeffect,providedthatallpendingproceedingsbevoidandthatnorights
,privileges,obligationsorliabilitiesshouldbedeemedtohaveaccruedundertherepealedsection
34.
7.
With
equal
dispatch
the
claimant,
with
all
the
host
of
section
34
applicants
approached
the
High
Courtpursuanttosection14oftheConstitutionclaimingthattheirrightshadbeeninfringed.
8.ByOctober,2012,some42applicationshadbeenfiledunderthenowrepealedsection34.Linked
toeachoftheseapplications,wereclaimspursuanttosection14oftheConstitution.Eachclaimant
soughtprincipallyadeclarationthattherepealofsection34wasunconstitutionalnullandvoid.
9.Itwasagreedbylearnedattorneysforallpartiesthatthreeclaimsshouldbeselectedforhearing
andthatallothersshouldabidetheirhearinganddetermination.
10.TheselectedclaimswerethoseofSteveFerguson,theclaimantherein,AmeerEdoo,andthejoint
claimofthreecompaniesMaritimeLife(Caribbean)Limited,MaritimeGeneralInsuranceCompany
Limited,andFidelityFinanceandLeasingCompanyLimited.
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
3/68
11.Inthecourseofthehearinganddeterminationoftheirclaim,thecourtconsideredthesignificance
ofthedoctrineofseparationofpowersinthecontextoftheWestminstertypeConstitutionsandthe
typeoflegislationwhichwouldconstituteabreachofthedoctrine.
12.The
court
considered
as
well
the
circumstances
in
which
it
would
be
appropriate
to
find
the
existenceofasubstantivelegitimateexpectationaswellasthefactorswhichwillentitleaclaimantto
theenforcementofsuchexpectations.
13.Thecourtconsideredthemeaningofconstitutionaldueprocessaswellastheroleandfunctionof
theDirectorofPublicProsecution(theDirector)andwhetherhisactionsconstituteaninterference
withpendingproceedings.
14.Inadjudicatingonallthoseissues,thecourtwasassistedbythesubmissionsoferuditeQueens
CounselandSeniorCounsel.
PROCEDURALHISTORY
15.On3rdOctober,2012theclaimant,SteveFerguson,commencedproceedingspursuanttoPart
56:7oftheCPR.Hesoughtthefollowingitemsofrelief:
1. A declaration that the provisions of the Administration of Justice (Indictable Proceedings)
(Amendment)Act,2012violatesthedoctrineoftheseparationofpowers,andiscontrarytotherule
oflaw,andisthusunconstitutionalandvoid.
2.FurtherorinthealternativeadeclarationthattheprovisionsoftheAmendmentActabridgesand
infringessections4(a)and(b)oftheConstitutionandisnullandvoidandofnoeffect.
3.AdeclarationthatnotrialshallcommenceoftheApplicantinrespectoftheconductallegedin
theprosecutionscolloquiallyknownasPiarcoNo.1andPiarcoNo.2.
4.Adeclarationthattheapplicantisentitledtobedischargedandtonotguiltyverdictsrelativetoall
the
charges
in
the
prosecutions
known
as
Piarco
No.
1
and
Piarco
No.
2
such
as
he
was
entitled
to
undertheoriginalprovisionsofsection34(3)oftheadministrationofJustice(IndictableProceedings)
Act2011.
5.Alternativelyadeclarationthatthecontinuationofthecriminalproceedingsrelativetotheconduct
alleged in theprosecutionsknownasPiarcoNo.1andPiarcoNo.2wouldconstituteanabuseof
processofthecourtandwouldabridge,infringeandviolatethedueprocessprovisionsofsection4
(a)oftheconstitutionandaswellastheapplicantsrighttotheprotectionofthelawundersection
4(b)oftheConstitution.
6.FurtherorinthealternativeanorderthattheprosecutionsknownasPiarcoNo.1andPiarcoNo.2
bestayedindefinitely
7.Suchfurtherand/orotherrelief,ordersordirectionsastheCourtmayinexerciseofitsjurisdiction
under
section
14
of
the
Constitution
and
under
its
inherent
jurisdiction
consider
appropriate
for
the
purposeofenforcingandprotectingorsecuringtheenforcementandprotectionoftheClaimants
saidrights.
16.On19thNovember,2012,inthecourseofapretrialreview,theCourtheardtheapplicationof
the Director of Public Prosecutions (the Director) to bejoined as an interested party to the
proceedings.Theapplicationwasgrantedbyconsent.
17.On19thNovember,2012,theCourtalsoheardtheclaimantsapplicationforastayofpending
criminalproceedings.TheDirectordidnotconsenttothestay,butagreedtoseekanadjournmentof
pendingcriminalproceedingsto1stFebruary,2013bywhichtimeitwasanticipatedthathearingof
the constitutional motions would have been completed. The Director agreed to seek a further
adjournmentto12thApril,2013pendingtheCourtsdecisionintheconstitutionalmotion.
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
4/68
18.ThepartiesagreedthattheconstitutionalmotionsbySteveFerguson,MaritimeLife(Caribbean)
Limited,MaritimeGeneralInsuranceCompanyLimited,FidelityFinanceandLeasingCompanyLimited
andAmeerEdooshouldbeheard togetherandthatallrelatedmattersbeadjournedpendingthe
hearinganddeterminationofthoseclaims.Thiswasdoneon19thNovember,2013andtheCourt
gavedirections
for
the
filing
and
service
of
further
affidavits
and
of
written
submissions.
19. The Court received written submissions from all parties. These were supplemented by oral
submissionscommencing28thJanuary,2013.On1stFebruary,2013,theCourtreserveditsdecision
toadatetobefixedbyNotice.
THEEVIDENCE
20. The evidence before the Court consisted of affidavit evidence only. There was no cross
examinationand the factswere largelyundisputed,withdifferencesarisingonlyas to theproper
inferencestobedrawnfromundisputedfacts.Thepartiesreliedonthefollowingaffidavits:
FirstaffidavitofSteveFergusonfiledon3rdOctober,2012(thesupportingaffidavit).
Second
affidavit
of
Steve
Ferguson
filed
on
9th
November,
2012
(filed
in
support
of
an
application
forastayofcriminalproceedings).
ThirdaffidavitofSteveFergusonfiledon23rdNovember,2012.
FourthaffidavitofSteveFerguson filedon20thDecember,2012 (inreplytotheaffidavitof the
AttorneyGeneral).
Fifth affidavitof Steve Ferguson filedon20thDecember, 2012 (in reply to the affidavitof the
Director).
SixthaffidavitofSteveFergusonfiledonthe9thJanuary,2013(forthepurposeofannexingthe
transcriptproceedingsintheMagistratesCourt).
SeventhaffidavitofSteveFergusonfiledon25thJanuary,2013.
AffidavitofRogerGaspard(theDirector)filedon12thDecember,2012.
Affidavit
of
Roger
Gaspard
(the
Director)
filed
on
18th
January,
2013.
AffidavitofKeinoSwamberfiledonthe9thJanuary,2013.
AffidavitoftheAttorneyGeneralMr.AnandRamloganfiledon18thDecember,2012.
Affidavit by Permanent Secretary, Reynold Cooper. This affidavit exhibited a statement of the
Honourable PrimeMinisterMrs.Bissessar. The affidavitwas regarded as containing inadmissible
hearsayandwasstruckoutbyconsent.
AffidavitofKerriAnnOlivierreoftheChiefStateSolicitorsDepartment,filedon21stFebruary,2013
onbehalfof theDefendant/AttorneyGeneral for thepurposeof annexing a listpreparedby the
RegistraroftheSupremeCourt.Thelistshowsallsection34applicationswhichhadbeenfiledbefore
therepealAct.
FACTS
TheAdministrationofJustice(IndictableProceedings)Act,2011(theAct).
21.On18thNovember,2011theAdministrationofJustice(IndictableProceedings)BilltheBillwas
readandpassedintheHouseofRepresentatives.TheBillwasreadandpassedintheSenateon29th
November, 2011. On 9th December, 2011 the House of Representatives agreed to the Senate
AmendmentsandtheBillbecamelawwhenitreceivedtheassentofHisExcellencythePresidenton
16thDecember,2011.Bysection1(1),theActwouldcomeintoforceonadatefixedbythePresident
byProclamation.
22.TheActwasintendedtoengenderreformstothecriminaljusticesystembyaddressingendemic
backlogsofcriminalcases intheMagistratesCourt.OneofthemethodsprescribedbytheActfor
achievingthisgoalwasbytheabolitionofpreliminaryenquiries.
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
5/68
23.Section34oftheActintroducedalimitationperiodforcriminalmatters.Thefulltextofsection34
is setout inAppendix Iof thisjudgment.Theportionof section34whichwas relevant to these
proceedingsconferredonanaccusedpersontherighttoapplytothecourtforthedismissalofcriminal
chargesagainsthimwhereten (10)yearshadelapsedsincetheoffencewasallegedtohavebeen
committed.
24.Section34wasnothoweverunrestricted.ThefacilityofapproachingtheCourtundersection34
wasnotavailablewheretheaccusedhadevadedtheprocessorwheretheoffenceinquestionwas
listedinSchedule6totheAct.TheoffenceslistedinSchedule6includedsexualcrimessuchasrape,
incestandbuggery,crimesofviolenceanddrugrelatedcrimes.Whitecollarcrimesandcrimesof
fraud and corruptionwerenot listed in Schedule6.Persons accusedofwhite collar crimeswere
thereforeentitledtoseekverdictsofnotguiltyundersection34,iften(10)yearshadpassedfromthe
dateoftheallegedoffence.
25.On6thAugust,2012,thethenMinisterofJusticepresentedaNoteforCabinetinformingCabinet
thatafter
consultation
with
the
Honourable
Chief
Justice,
it
had
been
agreed
that
the
Act
should
come
intoforceinitsentiretyon2ndJanuary,2013.
26.ThethenMinisterofJusticerecommendedtheearlyproclamationofcertainsectionsoftheAct
including section 34. The recommendation of the Minister of Justice was later embroiled in
controversy and ledultimately to thedismissalof theHonourableHerbertVolney asMinisterof
Justice.Thenetresultwas,however,thatbyPresidentialproclamationon28thAugust,2011section
34becamelawwitheffectfrom31stAugust,2012.
Piarco1and2.
27.Theclaimantwasanaccusedpersoncaughtbysection34.Atthetimeof theproclamationof
section
34,
he
was
among
persons
facing
charges
with
various
acts
of
corruption
allegedly
committed
toobtaincontractpackagesforthePiarcoAirportDevelopmentProject.Thecaseswereandcontinue
tobereferredtoasPiarco1andPiarco2.ThePiarco1casesinvolvedsomeeightpersons,naturaland
corporate,whowereallegedly receiving corruptpayments inexchange for theawardof contract
packages.InJanuary2008,theclaimanthadbeencommittedtostandtrialforPiarco1offences.These
offenceswereallegedtohavebeencommittedbetweenMarch1997andDecember2000.
28.Piarco2casesrelatedtochargesofoverallconspiracytodefraudtheAirportsAuthorityofTrinidad
andTobago,NIPDECandtheGovernmentofTrinidadandTobagobythefraudulentmanipulationof
thebidprocessforPiarcoAirportConstructionPackages.Thesechargeswereinitiallylaidin2004.The
relevant offences were alleged to have been committed between 1st January, 1995 and 31st
December,
2001.
29.In2006,theGovernmentoftheUnitedStatessoughttheextraditionoftheclaimantandofhisco
accused IshwarGalbaransingh inconnectionwithallegedoffencesofmoney launderingandfraud.
TheAttorneyGeneralexercisedthepowerofsurrenderundertheExtraditionActCh.12:04.
30.TheclaimantandMr.GalbaransinghsuccessfullychallengedthedecisionoftheAttorneyGeneral.
The Honourable Justice Boodoosingh granted an order quashing the decision and declaring the
appropriateforumtotrytheclaimantforthePiarcooffencestobeTrinidadandTobago.
31.TheclaimantallegedwithoutcontradictionthatheviewedtheParliamentarydebateswhichled
to the enactment of the Act.He testified further that he believed that once the legislationwas
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
6/68
proclaimedhewouldbeentitledtomakeanapplicationtoajudgeoftheHighCourttoseekverdicts
ofnotguiltyinrespectofbothsetsofproceedings.
32.TheclaimantreliedaswellonthearticlebyExpressJournalistKeinoSwamber.Thearticlewas
published in theDaily Expressof 5th September, 2012under the caption Scrapping Preliminary
Enquiries.Volney:
Only
Deadwood
cases
to
go.
This
article
was
exhibited
both
by
the
claimant
as
S.F.7andbyKeinoSwambertoanaffidavit filedon9th January,2013.Theclaimant reliedonthe
articleforthestatementofMinisterVolneythatthestatehastenyearstoprosecutesomeone(if
afterthattime)youcannotprosecutethatpersonyouwillneversucceedonthat indictment.Mr.
SwamberdeposedthatheaskedMinisterVolneywhethersection34wouldbeapplicabletowhite
collarcrimesandthatMinisterVolneyansweredintheaffirmative.
33.On10thSeptember,2012theclaimant,throughhisattorneys,filedanapplicationseekingaverdict
ofnotguiltypursuanttosection34oftheAct.
34.Whiletheclaimantsapplicationwasstillpending,theHonourableAttorneyGeneralpilotedaBill
forthe
repeal
of
section
34.
On
12th
September,
2012,
the
Administration
of
Justice
(Indictable
Proceedings)AmendmentAct(theAmendmentAct)waspassedintheHouseofRepresentatives.It
waspassedintheSenateonthefollowingdayandreceivedtheassentofHisExcellencythePresident
on14thNovember,2012. It istherepealstatutewhich ischallenged intheseproceedingasbeing
unconstitutional.Thesalientprovisionsaresetoutbelow:
2.ThisActisdeemedtohavecomeintoforceon16thDecember,2011
4.ThisActshallhaveeffecteventhoughinconsistentwithsections4and5oftheConstitution.
5.Section34isrepealedanddeemednottohavecomeintoeffect.
6.Notwithstandinganylawtothecontraryallproceedingsundertherepealedsection34whichwere
pendingbeforeanycourtimmediatelybeforethedateofassentshall,oncomingintoforceofthis
Act,bevoid
7.
Notwithstanding
any
law
to
the
contrary,
no
rights,
privileges,
obligations,
liabilities
or
expectations
shallbedeemedtohavebeenacquired,accrued,incurredorcreatedundertherepealedsection34
ComplaintofAdHominem
35.Theclaimantcontended that theenactmentof the repealstatutewasdirectedathim,atMr.
IshwarGalbaransinghandattheotherpersonswhowerefacingchargesinPiarco1andPiarco2.
36.Insupportofhiscontentiontheclaimantexhibitedandreliedonextractsfromnewspaperarticles
aswellasreportsfromParliamentarydebates.Therewasnoformalobjectiontotheuseofeither
newspaperarticlesorHansardReports.Therewasalsonoapplicationtohaveexhibitsofnewspaper
articlesorHansardReportsstruckoutasinadmissible.LearnedQueensCounsel,LordPannickhowever
underscored
the
need
for
the
Court
to
be
careful
in
relying
on
both
kinds
of
documents.
37.TheweightwhichtheCourtwillplaceontheseexhibitswillbedeterminedlaterinthisjudgment.
Fullreferencewillhoweverbemadetothematthisstage,whenthefactsarebeingsetout.
NewspaperReports
38.TheprintmediashonethespotlightontheclaimantandMr.Galbaransingh.InearlySeptember,
2012followingtheproclamationofsection34theSundayGuardianpublishedanarticleunderthe
headingIshandStevetowalkfree
39.Similarly,theenactmentoftherepealstatutewasportrayedbythenewspaperasbeingconcerned
exclusively with the claimant and Mr. Galbaransingh. Thus, on 13th September, 2013 Newsday
reportedtherepealofsection34undertheheadingIsh,Stevecutdown.
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
7/68
40.Inmyview,thedangerofrelyingonanewspaperreportisobvious.Aslongagoasthemid1980s,
theCourtofAppealofTrinidadandTobagoregardedtheuseofnewspaperreportsasinadmissible
hearsay(see:AttorneyGeneralvK.C.Confectionery).ThejournalisticemphasisonSteveandIsh
clearlyhasnobearingonthelegislativeintentionofParliamentandinfactachieveslittlemorethan
identifyingthe
issue
to
which
the
journalist
wishes
to
focus
public
attention.
The
Court
will,
therefore,
disregardnewspaperreportsinsofarastheyhavebeenpresentedassupportingthecontentionthat
thelegislationwasadhominem.
HansardReports
41.Atparagraph22ofhissupportingaffidavit,theclaimantreferredtotheParliamentaryDebateon
12thSeptember,2012.HeallegedthatitwasclearfromtheParliamentarydebatesthattheobjectof
theamendmentwas to remove the rightsofallwhohadapplied for reliefunder section34.The
HansardReport inrespectofthedebateof12thSeptember,2012wasexhibited totheclaimants
secondaffidavitandmarkedS.F.22.LearnedQueenCounselfortheclaimant,Mr.Fitzgerald,made
extensivereferencetothisextractonthefirstdayofhisaddress.
42.Ithasnotbeendisputedthaton12thSeptember,2012theHonourablePrimeMinisterconvened
anemergencysittingofParliament.Theemergencysittingwasconvenedinthewakeofaletterfrom
theDirectorofPublicProsecutionstotheHonourableAttorneyGeneralon11thSeptember,2012and
a predawn conference between the Honourable Prime Minister and the Attorney General the
followingday.ThedetailsoftheinvolvementoftheDirectorwillbeconsideredlater.
43.InthecourseofhisaddresstoParliamenttheHonourableAttorneyGeneralalludedtohisdecision
inthepreviousyeartoforegoanappealagainstthedecisionoftheHonourableJusticeBoodoosingh
inSteveFerguson&IshwarGalbaransinghvTheAttorneyGeneral.
44.
The
Attorney
General
had
this
to
say:
mydecisionnottoappealwasinfluencedinnosmallmeasureandindeedwaspredicatedonthe
factthattheaccusedcanbetriedinTrinidadandTobagobeforeourcourts
Andiftheeffectofthatprovisionwastodenyorpreventthattrialfromtakingplacethenthepremise
onwhichmydecisionwasbasedwouldhavebeenpulledout.
45.Laterinhisaddress,SenatorRamlogansaid:
whatweareseekingtodoistocorrectwhatwasaclearoversightbytheentireParliament.
46. Learned Queens Counsel, Mr. Fitzgerald, drew the Courts attention to page 28 of the
ParliamentaryReportwhere theHonourableAttorneyGeneral recountedhis discussionwith the
Director,
his
approach
to
the
Prime
Minister
and
the
later
decision
to
convene
Parliament.
47. Mr. Ramlogan explained his view on the impact of the then extant section 34. Saying that
Governmentcouldnotsupportabadlaw,theHonourableAttorneyGeneralalludedtoothermatters
suchas:
thecollapseandfinancialfiascoofCLICOandtheHinduCreditUnion
48.Inthecourseofthesamedebate,SenatorPrescottdecriedtheproposedlegislationsaying:
ItisclearthatthisParliamentisbeingaskedtosaytothosewhohavefiledactionswearecoming
afteryou.
49.TheauthoritieswhichrestricttheCourtsrelianceonHansardReportswillbeconsideredlaterin
thisjudgment.Atthisstage,itis,inmyview,adequatetopointtoTheAttorneyGeneralofMauritius
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
8/68
vKhoyratty[2007]1AC80,adecisionoftheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncil,whereLordSteyn
quotedextensivelyfromHansard inconsideringtheoverridingpurposeofthestatute.Iwasofthe
viewthatthisCourtcouldnotfallintoerrorbyfollowingtheexampleofLordSteyn.
TheAttorneyGeneralsDefence
50.The
Honourable
Attorney
General
Mr.
Ramlogan
placed
before
the
Court
an
affidavit
which
constitutedhispersonaltestimony.Inhisaffidavit,theAttorneyGeneraladmittedthathecouldnot
speak for Parliaments objective in enacting the repeal statute.He set out, however, to explain
governmentsintentioninintroducingtheBill.
51.TheAttorneyGeneral,inthesaidaffidavitdeposedthattheAmendmentActbecamenecessary
because the original Act had farreaching and unintended consequenceswhich had escaped the
attentionofParliament.
52.TheAttorneyGeneralcontinued:
Itwas never intended by the Government that this limitation period should apply to preclude
prosecutionsfor
historic
corruption
or
other
serious
offences.
53.ItwastheAttorneyGeneralsevidencethattheenactmentofsection34wasanunfortunateerror
andoversightonthepartoftheentirelegislature.
54. The Attorney General deposed thatGovernment never intended that the criminal limitation
provisioncontained intheoriginalsection34shouldbeapplicabletopersonschargedwithserious
criminaloffences.
55.TheAttorneyGeneralreferredtotheearlyproclamationofsection34underthestewardshipof
theHonourableJusticeVolneywhoatthematerialtimehadbeentheMinisterofJustice.
56. The AttorneyGeneral deposed that Minister Volney had approached the Cabinet with a
recommendationforproclamationoftheentireActbyJanuary,2013andearlyproclamationofselect
sectionsincludingsection34.
57.TheAttorneyGeneralreferredtotheallegationthattheMinisterofJusticehadmisledCabinet
andtotheeventualrevocationofhisappointmentbythePresidentontheadviceoftheHonourable
PrimeMinister.
58.TheAttorneyGeneralexhibitedtheNotewhichhepresentedtoCabinet.TheNoteforCabinet
dated11thSeptember,2012providesthefollowingreasonfortherepealAct:
Cabinet
is
advised
that
the
early
proclamation
of
the
said
section
34
can
possibly
attract
widespread
criticisminviewofthepotentialconsequencesforhighprofilecases
59.TheAttorneyGeneralreferredtoallegationsofcorruptioninStateenterprisessuchasCLFinancial
andHinduCreditUnion.TheAttorneyGeneralalsodeposedthattheGovernmentrealizedthatthe
originalsection34couldjeopardizeothercredibleprosecutions.
60.TheAttorneyGeneralalso identified corruptionprobesunder investigation suchas Petrotrin
WorldGTL,UdeCott,EvolvingTechnologies,UniversityoftheWestIndiesandTrinidadand
TobagoElectricityCommission.Hedeposedthatthoseinvestigationsdatedbackto2002.
61.InrespectofStateAgenciesunderinvestigation,theAttorneyGeneralstated:
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
9/68
Inthe lightofthedates involved itbecamecleartomethat therewasarealpossibilitythat if
criminalprosecutionswereinduecoursecommencedinrelationtoanyofthosematterstheywould
beaffectedbytheapplicationofsection34
62.TheAttorneyGeneralalludedtothepublicconcernthattheclaimantandMr.Galbaransinghmight
bereleased:
withouttrial,wasacauseofgreatpublicconcerninearlySeptember2012
63.However,theAttorneyGeneralmadethisdistinction:
Thatwasthepublicsconcern
Hethenproceededtoemphasize:
asAttorneyGeneralIwasalsoparticularlyconcernedinrelationtotheimpactofsection34ona
numberofongoinginquiriesintohistoricalcorruption
64.TheAttorneyGeneralstoutlydeniedthattherepealstatutewastargetedatanyindividualcase.
Hedeposed:
Onthecontrary,werecognizedtheimportanceofapproachingthemischiefcausedbysection34
inaglobalmanner
InvolvementoftheDirector
65.RogerGaspardwasatallmaterialtimestheDirectorofPublicProsecutionsdulyappointedbythe
JudicialandLegalServiceCommissiontoholdthatofficepursuanttosection90oftheConstitution.
66.On2ndMarch,2011hereceivedawritteninvitationfromthethenMinisterofJusticetocomment
ontheBill.TheDirectorprovidedhiscommentson6thMay,2011,butdeposedthathewasnever
invitedtocommentonclause34oftheBill.
67.InFebruary2012,thePermanentSecretaryintheMinistryofJusticerequestedinformationasto
thenumberofmatterswhichwouldbecaughtbysection34whenproclaimed.TheDirectordirected
Mr.GeorgeBusby,AssistantDirectortoprovidetheinformationsought.Mr.Busbyinhisletterdated
the26thMarch,2012citedtheprovisionsofclause34andsuggestedthatonewillbeunable to
indicategenerallythenumberofmatterstowhichthesaidsection34(3)wouldapply.
68.TheAssistantDirectorthenproceededtoindicatethatitwaspossibletoquantifythenumberof
mattersforwhichcommittalpapershadbeenreceivedinrespectofnonschedule6offences.
69.Theinformationwasnotsuppliedintheletterof26thMarch,2012.However,on22ndMay,2012
the
Assistant
Director
again
wrote
to
the
Permanent
Secretary
in
the
Ministry
of
Justice
in
order
to
providethisinformation:
permitmetoindicatethatwehavenowbeenabletoquantifythenumberofmattersforwhich
committalpapershavebeen received foroffencesnot listed inSchedule6 thatwereallegedly
committedmorethanten(10)yearsagothatnumberasofthisdatestandsat47
70.On 24th July, 2012 theDirectorparticipated in ameetingof the Judiciary and Justice Sector
Committee.ThemeetingwasheldintheConferenceRoomoftheChiefJustice,withtheHonourable
MinisterofJustice,Mr.Volney,theDirectorandatleastfifteenotherpublicofficials.
71.TheDirectorexhibitedtheMinutesofthismeeting.TheMinutesreflectedthefocusofthemeeting
asbeingtheimplementationprocessfortheregimecreatedbytheAct.TheHonourableChiefJustice
enquiredastothereadinessofthePoliceService,theDirector,theDepartmentofForensicsandof
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
10/68
the Legal Aid and Advisory Authority. In that meeting the Honourable Chief Justice reportedly
cautioned against early proclamation of section 34. TheHonourable Chief Justice is recorded as
warningthatiftheproclamationdateisbroughtforwardallstakeholderswillbeplacedinaposition
oftryingtorespondtoastateofurgency
72.At
paragraph
18
of
the
Minutes,
the
Honourable
Minister
Volney
is
recorded
as
having
conceded
that a proclamation date in September or October was not feasible . At paragraph 34, the
HonourableMinisterVolney advised that the proclamationdatewillbe revised to 2nd January,
2013.
73. The Director testified that following themeeting of July, 2013, he had no indication of the
possibilityofearlyproclamationofsection34. In factheknewoftheearlyproclamationafterthe
eventon31stAugust,2013.
74.On6thSeptember,2012theDirectorreceivedserviceofanapplicationbyAmrithMaharajfor
reliefundersection34.Onthefollowingday,on7thSeptember,2012thePiarcoproceedingswere
listedbefore
her
Worship
Ejenny
Espinet.
On
this
occasion,
the
Director
requested
an
adjournment
to
considerhowthePiarco2casesmightprogressinthelightofsection34.
75.On10thSeptember,2012theDirectorwrotetotheAttorneyGeneralprincipallyforthepurpose
ofprovidinginformationastothePiarco2prosecutions.TheDirectorendedhisletterbyinvitingthe
AttorneyGeneraltoconsidereithertheretroactiverepealofsection34ortheproclamationofsection
27(4)oftheActortheamendmentofSchedule6toincludethetypeofoffencesinPiarco1and2.The
DirectorsuggestedaswellthatSchedule6shouldbeamendedtoincludeotherseriousoffencesof
seditionterrorismpiracyandLarcenyandForgeryActOffences
76.TheDirectoragainwrote to theAttorneyGeneralon11thSeptember,2011. In this letterhe
reminded
the
Attorney
General
of
discussions
which
had
taken
place
that
day
pertaining
to
the
AttorneyGeneralsintentiontorepealsection34.TheDirectorexpressedthisview:
tobeeffectiveanysuchamendmentorrepealshouldexpresslydeclarethatitisofretrospective
effect
77.TheDirectoralsoissuedaPressRelease.Atparagraph17ofhisaffidavithestatedthepurposeof
thePressRelease.
Tolaybeforethepublicthehistoryofsection34andmyofficeslackofinputintothismatter,Iissued
aneight(8)pagePressReleaseinrelationtothePiarcoAirportProceedings.
78. InhisPressReleasetheDirectoraddressedthegravityof thePiarcomattersand theeffectof
section
34
on
the
Piarco
matters.
79.He sought to inform thepublic thathehadnotbeenconsultedonsection34andnoted that
offences such as sedition, terrorism, piracy and money laundering were not excluded from the
operationofthesection.
80.TheDirector informedthepublicofhisapproachtotheAttorneyGeneralandtotheAttorney
GeneralsstatedintentiontoreconveneParliamentwithaviewtorepealingtheintendedsection.He
expressedtheviewthatthestateofaffairswhichobtainedunderthesection34regimecouldnotbe
allowedtoremainextant.
81.TheDirectorendedhisreleasebystating:
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
11/68
Hopefullythesituationcanstillberetrievedandtherampartsofthestatesrighttoprosecutethese
mattersremainintactastheyproperlyshould.
82. TheDirector set out his views on the draft bill in a letter dated 13th September, 2013 and
addressed to theAttorneyGeneral.The lettercame to theAttorneyGeneralsattentionafter the
repealBill
had
been
passed.
83.TheDirectorsworeasecondaffidaviton18thJanuary,2013whichwasalsofiledonthesameday.
Bythisaffidavit,theDirectorsoughttoanswerqueriesmadeinanunexhibitedletterfromMr.Robin
Otway,learnedinstructingattorneyfortheclaimant.Inanswertothesequeries,theDirectorannexed
alistintabularformunderthecaptionMattersaffectedbytheProclamationofsection34.Eleven
(11)matters appear in the first row of the table. These have been identified by theDirector as
pertainingtothePiarcoprosecutions.
84.Additionally,therewerethirtyfivematterswhichwerenotrelatedtothePiarcoprosecutions.
SUBMISSIONSMr.Fitzgerald,Q.C.
85.Mr. Fitzgerald, learnedQueenCounsel for the claimant, Steve Ferguson argued that thepre
repealedsection34conferredontheClaimanttherightnottobeputontrial.Mr.Fitzgeraldsubmitted
thattheClaimantsrightcrystallizedandbecamevestedinhimuponproclamationbythePresident.
86.Itwastheargumentof learnedQ.C.Mr.Fitzgeraldthattheclaimanthadacquireda legitimate
expectationthathewouldnotbetriedforhistoricoffences.Thatlegitimateexpectationarose,inhis
submission,fromthepublicandunequivocaltermsinwhichtherightnottobeputontrialwascreated
bytheenactmentandproclamationofsection34. IntheLearnedQ.C.ssubmission,the legitimate
expectationalsoarosebythepublicstatementsoftheformerMinisterofJustice.
87.Mr.Fitzgeraldarguedthatthelegitimateexpectationoftheclaimantwasprotectedbothunder
the Constitution and at common law. Inmaking his submissions, he relied on the authorities of
PaponettevAttorneyGeneralandRv.SecretaryofState forHomeAffairsexpartePierson .Mr.
Fitzgerald argued that theAmendmentActwas invalidby virtueof itsbreachof the doctrineof
separationofpowers. Inhissubmission,section5oftherepealstatutewas invalidbecause itwas
retrospective,adhominemandinterferedwiththeexerciseofjudicialpower.
88. Section 6of theAmendmentAct, in the submission ofMr. Fitzgeraldwas invalid because it
targetedpendingproceedingsand impermissibly sought todictate to the courthow todealwith
pendingapplications.
89.Inrespectofsection7,learnedQueenCounselcontendedthatthissectionwasinvalidbecauseit
soughttoremovevestedrightsandtooustthejurisdictionofthecourttodecideontheviabilityof
accruedprivilegesandexpectations.
90.CitingthedecisionofthePrivyCouncilinThomasandBaptistevAttorneyGeneral,Mr.Fitzgerald
contendedthatitwascontrarytotheprotectionofthelawforeithertheexecutiveorthelegislative
tointerfereinthejudicialprocess.
91.Mr. Fitzgeraldargued thatasamatterofprinciple, the courtwillnotpermit the initiationor
continuationofaprosecutioninbreachofapromisebyarepresentativeofthestate.
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
12/68
92.LearnedQ.C.arguedthatsection7oftherepealstatutewasbothwideandvagueandrelyingon
the case of Raymond v Honey learned Q.C. invited the court to adopt a narrow, interpretative
approachtosection7oftherepealstatute.
TheHonourableMichaelBeloff,Q.C.
93.Learned
Q.C.
Mr.
Fitzgerald
adopted
the
submissions
of
learned
Q.C.
Mr.
Beloff,
who
argued
in
supportoftheclaimofthethreecompanies,MaritimeLife (Caribbean)Limited,MaritimeGeneral
InsuranceCompanyLimitedandFidelityFinanceandLeasingCompanyLimited.
94.Mr.Beloffreliedontheargumentsadvanced in theSkeletonArguments filedonbehalfofthe
threecompanieson8th January,2013andReplySkeletonArguments filedon21st January,2013.
TheseargumentsweresupplementedbythelearnedQueensCounselsoralsubmissionsbeforethis
Court.
95. LearnedQueens Counsel identified the following five (5)main arguments in support of his
submissiononbehalfofthethreecompaniesthattheAmendmentActisvoid:
(i)The
Amendment
Act
violates
the
principle
of
separation
of
powers
because
(a)
section
5involves
adhominem and retrospective legislation that interfereswith the exercise ofjudicial power and
removesvestedlegalrights;(b)section6targetsidentifiableproceedingsalreadybeforethecourts,
whichwerebroughtbyidentifiablepersonsandalsoimproperlysoughttodirectthecourtastohow
to treat suchproceedingspending;and (c) section7 removedvested rightsandousts the courts
jurisdictiontodecidefor itselfwhetheranyrights,privilegesorexpectationshavebeenaccruedby
virtueoftheproclamationandtheconsequentcomingintoforceofsection34.
(ii)TheAmendmentActrepresents interferencebythe legislaturewithmattersthatwerepending
beforetheCourtinrespectofwhichtheStateisalsoaparty.
(iii)
The
Amendment
Act
is
unconstitutional
and
constitutes
an
abuse
of
process
because
its
enactment
resulted inabreachofanundertakinggivenbythestatuteaswellasofficialstatements,thatthe
proceedingsagainstthethreecompanieswouldbeterminated.Inotherwords,Mr.Beloffsargument
isthatonceadefendanthasbeenexpresslyorimplicitlytoldthattheproceedingsagainsthimwillnot
proceed to trial, it is contrary to principle for Parliament to legislate to reverse that legitimate
expectation.Thisisparticularlyso,hecontends,whenasintheinstantcase,theexpectationcreated
hasbeenactedupon.
Mr.BeloffdisagreedwiththeAGsandtheDirectorssubmissionsthattheClaimantenjoyednothing
more than a temporary procedural right. It is inadequate, he contends, to describe what the
companiesexpectedtoenjoyasmerelyaproceduralright.Inhissubmission,Immunityfromtrialis
notmerelyproceduralinnaturebecause,fornaturalpersons,theirliberty,forlegalpersonssuchas
the
three
companies
their
property
and
for
both,
their
reputations
are
all
potentially
threatened
by
exposuretotrial.
(iv)TheAmendmentActisunconstitutionalandanimpermissibleresponsetopopularpressurethat
thethreecompaniesandtheotherapplicants,shouldstandtrial.
(v)Therepealofsection34isnotreasonablyjustifiableinasocietythathasaproperrespectforthe
rightsandfreedomsoftheindividual.
96.Mr.Beloff supplementedhiswritten submissionsbyhisaddress to theCourton29th30th
January,2013.DuringthecourseofhisaddressMr.Beloffmadeextensivereferencetotheaffidavits
oftheHonourableAttorneyGeneralandoftheDirector,insupportofhiscontentionthattherepeal
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
13/68
ofsection34was triggeredbyapublic furorwhich followed thePresidentialproclamationof the
sectionon28thAugust,2012.
97.ThelearnedQ.C.reliedaswellontheaddressoftheHonourableAttorneyGeneraltoParliament
on12thSeptember,2012todemonstratethatthePiarcocaseswerethefocusoftheAmendmentAct.
Ms.Chote,
SC,
who
appeared
for
Ameer
Edoo
98.LearnedQueensCounsel,Mr.FitzgeraldreliedaswellontheargumentsofMs.Chote, learned
SeniorCounselfortheClaimant,AmeerEdoo.Ms.ChotearguedthateveniftheCourtweretofind
thattheAmendmentActwasvalidandconstitutional,thecriminalproceedingsagainsttheClaimant
ought to be stayed indefinitely on the ground that the Claimants continued prosecutionwould
amounttoanabuseofprocessatcommonlaw.
99.Ms.ChotescontendedthattheDirectorlacksthepowertostepoutsideofthefunctionsidentified
inSharmavBrowneAntoineandOthers,thatistosaythosedefinedbysection90oftheConstitution
aswellasbytheUKCodeforProsecutors.
100.It
was
the
submission
of
learned
Senior
Counsel
that
the
actions
of
the
Director
effectively
amountedtoaninterferencewithproceedingstowhichhewasalsoaparty.CitingthecaseofConnelly
vtheDirector,learnedSeniorsuggestedthattheprosecutionmanipulatedormisusedtheprocessof
the Court so as to deprive the defendant of a protection provided by the law or to take unfair
advantageofatechnicality.
101.AccordingtoMs.Chote,theDirectorwaswellawareoftheClaimantsapplicationundersection
34following itsproclamation,butdidnothingtosuggestthattheClaimantwasnotentitledtothe
reliefsought.Instead,heconductedbehindthescenescommunicationswiththeAGtochangethe
lawsothattheClaimantwouldbedeprivedofthereliefwhichhebecameentitledtobyvirtueof
section34.For the reasonsadvanced, learnedSeniorcontended that theproceedingsagainst the
Claimants
should
be
permanently
stayed.
Mr.BenjaminfortheDirectorofPublicProsecutions
102.Inadditiontohiscarefullycraftedwrittensubmissionsinanswertotheclaimantssubmissions
onthemainissuesofseparationofpowers,legitimateexpectationanddueprocess,Mr.Benjamin
devotedthegreaterpartofhisoraladdresstodefendingtheactionsoftheDirector.
103.Inhisvivavocesubmissionon31stJanuary,2013 learnedCounselreferredtothedecisionon
Sharmav.Antoineandformulatedtheseseven(7)propositionsagainstwhichtheCourtwasinvited
to
assess
the
conduct
of
the
Director
:
(i)TheDirectorisrequiredtoexerciseindependentjudgmentunaffectedbypoliticalpressure.
(ii)TheDirectorisrequiredtoexerciseindependentjudgmentunswayedbypublicopinion.
(iii)TheDirectorisrequiredtomaintainpublicconfidenceintheadministrationofcriminaljustice.
(iv)TheDirector isrequiredand isempoweredtoexerciseawidediscretionhavingregardtoboth
publicpolicyandthepublicinterestinsofarastheyimpactandimpingeupontheadministrationof
criminaljustice.
(v)TheDirectorasappointeeoftheJudicialandLegalServiceCommission,occupyinganindependent
office does not have any legislative,judicial or in the narrow sense executive functions. He is
independent. He has no power over any arm of the three arms of Government. His proper
constitutionalroleistoadviseandcounsel.
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
14/68
(vi)TheDirectorhasadiscretionabouttheadvicethathemustcarefullyandindependentlyconsider
astocontent,fairnesstimingofanyproposedchangestobothproceduralandsubstantivelawwhich
governandimpactupontheadministrationofcriminaljustice.
(vii)TheDirectorhasadiscretionconcerningtheadviceandthestepsthateitherhetakespersonally
ordirecthissubordinatestotakeinconnectionwiththecommencement,continuationortermination
ofcriminal
proceedings.
104.LearnedCounselsubmittedthattherewasnobasisinlawnorwasthereanyevidentialbasisupon
whichtheconductoftheDirector,inrelationtotheAmendmentAct,couldbeimpugned.Accordingly
hesubmittedthattheDirectorsconductwasentirelyproperandinaccordancewiththeruleoflaw
andhisoverridingobligationtosupporttheproperadministrationofcriminaljustice.
105.Mr.BenjaminpointedoutthattheCourtwasnotdirectedtoanypieceofevidencetosupport
theClaimantssubmissionthattherewasadirectionfromtheDirectortothelegislature.Noneofthe
Directorsactions,Mr.Benjaminstronglysubmitted,couldsensiblybedescribedasan interference
withthelegislativeprocessorasamanipulationofthejudicialprocess.
106.Mr.Benjaminwentonfurthertosubmit,however,thateveniftheCourtfindsthattheDirectors
actions amounted to an interference, itwouldnot amount to an infringement of the Claimants
constitutionalrights.
107.Mr.BenjaminmaintainedthattheDirectorhasaresponsibilitytoconsiderandadviseinrelation
to legislationas itaffectsand impactsupontheadministrationofjustice.TheDirectorspowersas
contained insection90oftheConstitution,Counselsubmitted,cannotbeabasisfordisablinghim
fromprovidinghisadviceandrecommendationasandwhentheyareaskedforandasorwhen,ex
propriomotu,hethinksitisappropriatetodoso.
108.LearnedCounsel,Mr.Benjaminmadesubmissionsastothepropermeaningoftheconceptof
due
process
of
law
and
drew
the
Courts
attention
to
the
judgment
of
the
Honourable
Justice
of
Appeal
Kangaloo in Ferguson andGalbaransingh vAttorneyGeneral . In thatdecision, Justice ofAppeal
Kangalooconsideredthecompetinginterpretationsoftheconceptofdueprocessasexpoundedon
theonehandbyLordMillettinThomasandAnothervCiprianiBaptisteandOthersandontheother
byLordHoffmaninTheStatevBradBoyce.
LordPannickfortheDefendantAttorneyGeneral
109.LordPannickidentifiedthefollowingeight(8)issuesasthosearisingfortheCourtsconsideration
inthisclaim:
(i)SeparationofPowers
(ii)TheUnwrittenPrincipleoftheRuleofLaw
(iii)
Constitutional
Right
to
Due
Process
(iv)LegitimateExpectations
(v)PopulistPressure
(vi)ParliamentaryProcessandtheconductoftheDirector
(vii)AbuseofProcess
(viii)RelevanceoftheHansardmaterialandcorrespondence
110.Openinghissubmissionsbyreferencetothepresumptionofconstitutionalityofparliamentary
enactmentsLordPannickemphasizedasecondprinciple,thatistosay,thatCourtsarenotconcerned
with theproprietyand theexpediencyof the Legislation,butonlywith its constitutionality.This
principlewasenunciatedbyLordBinghaminSurattvA.G.
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
15/68
111.Inanswertosubmissionsonthedoctrineoftheseparationofpowers,LordPannickaccepted
thatanAct inbreachoftheprincipleofseparationofpowerscouldnotbeprotectedbyaspecial
parliamentarymajoritypursuant to section13. Itwas,however, theargumentof learnedQueens
Counselthattherewasnobreachoftheprincipleoftheseparationofpowersbytheenactmentof
theAmendmentAct.LordPannickdistinguishedLiyanagevRandarguedthattherearefourlinked
reasonswhy
the
Amendment
Act
does
not
violate
the
separation
of
powers
principle
:(a)TheAmendmentActisnotadhominembutappliesgenerallytoallcases.Itis,heargued,general
intermsandeffectandnotconfinedtothePiarcodefendants.LearnedQueensCounselalsoreliedon
thecasesofNicholasvTheQueen ,RidgewayvR ,LiyanagevR ,ZunigaandOrs.vTheAttorney
GeneralofBelize.
(b)Retrospectivelegislationisnotofitselfabreachofseparationofpowers.LordPannicksubmitted,
relyingonthePolyukhovichvTheCommonwealthofAustraliacase,thatso longasthe legislature
doesnot tell the courtwho isguiltyor innocent retrospectivecriminal law isconsistentwith the
separationofpowersdoctrine.SeealsoBritishColumbiavImperialTobaccoCanadaLtd.
(c)Thereisnogeneralprinciplethattheseparationofpowersprincipleisbreachedbylegislationthat
removesoraffectsrightsinpendinglegalproceedingsevenifcriminal.
(d)Whether
legislation
breaches
the
separation
of
powers
principle
by
addressing
or
removing
rights
inpendingproceedingsdependson thecircumstances. In fact inthiscircumstance theremovalof
section34facilitatesthefunctioningofthecourttoadjudicateonthecriminalcases.SeePolyukovich
, Nicholas , Australian Building Construction Employees & Builders Labourers Federation v
Commonwealth,ChuKhengLimvMinisterforImmigration.LordPannickalsosubmittedthattheU.S.
vKleinreliedonbytheclaimantshasbeendistinguishedinmorerecentauthorities.Seeforexample
MillervFrench.InadditionthecaseofBuckleyandOthersvTheAttorneyGeneralreliedonbythe
claimantisa1947case,decidedlongbeforethemoremodernlawonseparationofpowers.
112.WhereasLordPannickmadeextensivesubmissionsinanswertotheremainingissues,itwashis
submissionthatthesewere, inthefinalanalysis irrelevant.ShouldtheCourtacceptthattherehad
been
a
breach
of
the
doctrine
of
separation
of
powers,
the
claimant
would
not
need
to
rely
on
the
remainingissues.Conversely,shouldtheCourtacceptthedefendantssubmissionontheissueofthe
separationofpowers,anychallengesastotheremaining issueswouldberesolvedbytheconjoint
effectofsection13oftheConstitutionandthemajoritywithwhichtheAmendmentActhadbeen
passed.
LAW
PresumptionofConstitutionality
113.ThepresumptionofconstitutionalityofActsofParliamentisacardinalprinciple,whichhasbeen
appliedbyCourtsofthehighestauthority.Thisprinciple,wasreaffirmedbytheirLordshipsatthe
JudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilinSurrattvAttorneyGeneralofTrinidadandTobago,where
Baroness
Hale
of
Richmond
stated
at
paragraph
45
of
her
judgment:
It is a strong thing indeed to rule that legislation passed by a democratic Parliament is
unconstitutional.
The constitutionality of a parliamentary enactment is presumed unless it is shown to be
unconstitutionalandtheburdenonapartyseekingtoproveinvalidityisaheavyone
114. Instatingtheprinciple,BaronessHalereferredtoGrantvRwhichwasalsoadecisionofthe
JudicialCommittee,wheretheirLordshipsheardanappealfromtheCourtofAppealofJamaica.In
thecourseofconsideringwhethersection31DoftheEvidenceActwasinconsistentwithsection20
oftheJamaicanConstitution,LordBinghamstatedtheprincipleinthisway:
Itisfirstofallclearthattheconstitutionalityofaparliamentaryenactmentispresumedunlessitis
showntobeunconstitutionalandtheburdenonapartyseekingtoproveinvalidityisaheavyone:
MootoovA.G.ofTrinidadandTobago[1979]1WLR1334
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
16/68
115.Seetooparagraph11ofFergusonandGalbaransinghv.AttorneyGeneralwhereJusticeofAppeal
Kangalooformulatedtheruleinthisway:
Thestartingpoint inalljudicialdeliberationsof thisnature is the fundamentalprinciple that the
constitutionalityofaparliamentaryenactmentistobepresumedunlessthecontraryisshown.
116.EquallyentrenchedistheprinciplethattheCourtistheultimatearbiteroftheconstitutionality
ofanActofParliament.ThisprinciplewasconfirmedbyJusticeofAppealKangalooatparagraph15
ofFergusonandGalbaransingh,inthesewords:
Be that as it may it ultimately falls to the court to decide the challenged legislation infringes
constitutionalrightssetoutinsections4and5.ThecourtsaretheguardiansoftheConstitutionand
theruleoflawandcannotbyvirtueoftheConstitutionitself,yieldthisjurisdictiontoanyotherarm
oftheState.Itthereforefollowsinmyviewthatwherethesection13procedureisusedandanActis
passed with a special majority, it does not automatically mean that the legislation infringes
constitutionalrights.ItistheviewofParliamentthatitdoes,howeverthecourtsmustengageintheir
owndeliberationonthisissue.ThecourtstartsonthebasisthatParliamentwasoftheviewthatthe
provisionsof
the
legislation
were
inconsistent
with
section
4and
5and
therefore
required
aspecial
majority.TheCourtcanrationallycometotheconclusionthattheprovisionsdidnotsoinfringeand
no specialmajoritywasnecessary. This ishardly ever likely tohappen inpractice,but thepoint
remainsthatitisalwaysforthecourtstodeterminewhethertheprovisionsofanActareinconsistent
withs.4ands.5tosuchanextentordegreeortousethewordsofLordDiplockinHindsareofsuch
acharacter,thatthelegislationisthereforedeclaredunconstitutional.
TheSeparationofPowers:GeneralPrinciple
DonJohnFrancisLiyanagevR
117.AnydiscussionastotheseparationofpowersinthecontextofWestminsterModelconstitutions
must
begin
with
Liyanage,
the
facts
of
which
are
set
out
below.
118. An Abortive Coup detat took place in Ceylon on 27th January, 1962. The appellantswere
sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and forfeiture feature of all their property. The
appellantswho had been convicted under the Criminal Law Special ProvisionActNo. 1 of 1962
appealedtheirconvictionssharingacommongroundthattheconvictionsshouldbequashedowing
totheinvalidityofthe1962Act.
119. Prior to the enactment under consideration, a White Paper had been prepared by the
GovernmentofCeylon.TheWhitePapersetoutthenamesofthirtyallegedconspirators.TheWhite
Paperendedbyobservingthatadeterrentpunishmentofaseverecharactershouldbeimposed.
120.On16thMarch,1962,theParliamentofCeylonpassedtheCriminalLaw(SpecialProvisionsAct)
No1of1962.LordPearceinhisjudgmentwrote:
thatitwasdirectedtowardsparticipantsinthecoupisclear
121.TheActofMarch1962wasalsogivenretrospectiveforce,inthat,itwasdeemedtocomeinto
forceon1stJanuary,1962.Section19oftheMarch1962Actlimiteditsapplicationtotheparticipants
inthecoupbyproviding:
theprovisionsofPart1shallbelimitedinitsapplicationtoanyoffenceagainstthestatealleged
tohavebeencommittedonorabout27thJanuary,1962.
122.PartIlegalisedthedetentionoftheallegedperpetratorsofthecoup,whilePartIIoftheMarch
1962ActalteredthemodeoftrialasspecifiedintheCriminalProcedureCode.UndertheMarch1962
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
17/68
Act,theMinisterwasempoweredtodirectthatpersonsbetriedbythreeJudgeswithoutajury,the
threeJudgestobenominatedbytheMinister.ThisstatutewasconsideredbytheverythreeJudges
nominatedby theMinister.Theyconcluded that thepowerofnomination in theMinisterwasan
interferencewiththejudicialpoweroftheState.Theydeclaredsection9oftheMarch1962Acttobe
ultravires.
123. There was no appeal against the declaration of invalidity. Parliament however, passed an
amendment ActNo. 31 of 1962. The Amendment Act retrospectively allowed arrestswithout a
warrant for theoffenceofwagingwaragainst theQueenandaltered thepenalty forwagingwar
againsttheQueenbyinsertingaminimumpunishmentofnotlessthantenyearsimprisonment.
124.TheAmendedActprovidedretrospectivelyforthealterationofthepenaltyforconspiringtowage
waragainsttheQueenbyinsertingaminimumpunishmentoftenyearsimprisonmentandforfeiture
ofallproperty.Italsoincludedanewoffenceexpostfacto.
125.Theappellantswere triedbythreejudgesnominatedbytheChief Justice. InApril,1965, the
appellantswere
convicted
and
sentenced.
The
appellants
advanced
three
main
arguments
as
to
the
unconstitutionalityoftheAct.ThesecondandthirdargumentsfoundfavourwiththeirLordships.At
page287DE,LordPearcehadthistosay:
The Constitution is significantly divided into parts: Part 2: The Governor General, Part 3: The
Legislature andPart6 the Judicaturealthoughnoexpressmention ismadeof vesting in the
judicature the judicial power which it already had there is provision under Part 6 for the
appointmentofjudgesbyaJudicialServiceCommission
126.Atpage287G,LordPearcecontinued:
Theseprovisionsmanifestanintentiontosecureinthejudiciaryafreedomfrompolitical,legislative
andexecutivecontrol.TheyarewhollyappropriateinaConstitutionwhichintendsthatjudicialpower
shall
be
vested
only
in
the
judicature
Theconstitutionssilenceastothevestingofjudicialpowerisconsistentwithitsremainingwhereit
hadlainformorethanacenturyinthehandsofthejudicatureItisnotconsistentwithanyintention
thathenceforthitshouldpasstoorbesharedbytheexecutiveorthelegislative
127.LordPearceconsideredwhethertheActof1962usurpedorinfringedthejudicialpowerandat
page289DE,madethefollowingobservation:
Itgoeswithoutsayingthatthelegislaturemaylegislateforthegeneralityofitssubjectsbythecitation
ofcrimesandpenaltiesorbyenactingtherulesrelatingtoevidence.ButtheActsof1962hadnosuch
generalintention.Theywereclearlyaimedatparticularknownindividualswhohadbeennamedin
theWhitePaperandwereinprisonawaitingtheirfate.
128.Atpage289F,LordPearceconsideredtheLegislationbeforetheBoardandhadthistosay:
Thatthealterationsinthelawwerenotintendedforthegeneralityofthecitizensordesignedasany
improvementofthegenerallawisshownbythefactthattheeffectofthosealterationswastobe
limitedtotheparticipantsintheJanuarycoupandthatafterthesehadbeendealtwithbythejudges
thelawshouldreverttoitsnormalstate.
129.LordPearcethenissuedthiscaveatatpage289G:
theirLordshipsarenotpreparedtoholdthatveryenactmentinthisfieldwhichcanbedescribed
asadhominemandexpostfactomustinevitablyusurporinfringethejudicialpowernordothey
finditnecessarytoattempttheimpossibletaskoftracingwherethelineistobedrawnbetweenwhat
willandwhatwillnotconstitutesuchasinterferenceeachcasemustbedecidedinthelightofitsown
factsandcircumstancesincludingthetruepurposeofthelegislationthesituationtowhichitwas
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
18/68
directed,theexistenceofacommondesignandtheextenttowhichthelegislationaffects,bywayof
directionorrestriction,thediscretionorjudgmentofthejudiciaryinspecificproceedings.
130.LordPearcethenconcluded:
It is thereforenecessary toconsidermore closely thenatureof the legislationchallenged in this
appeal.
131.Atpage290ELordPearceendorsedthesummaryformulatedbyMr.Gratiaen.Mr.Gratiaens
summarywasoutlinedinthisway:
Mr.GratiaensuccinctlysummariseshisattackontheActsinquestionasfollows.TheActwaswholly
bad in that itwasa specialdirection to thejudiciaryas to trialofparticularprisonerswhowere
identifiable(inviewoftheWhitePaper)andchargedwithparticularoffencesonaparticularoccasion.
ThepithandsubstanceofbothActswasalegislativeplanexpostfactotosecuretheconvictionand
enhancethepunishmentofthoseindividuals.
132.LordPearcecontinuedwiththeoutlineofMr.Gratienssummary:
Itlegalized
their
imprisonment
while
they
were
awaiting
trial.
It
made
admissible
their
statements
inadmissiblyobtained.Italteredthefundamentallawofevidencesoastofacilitatetheirconviction.
Andfinally,italteredexpostfactothepunishmenttobeimposedonthem
133.LordPearcereiteratedhisearlierindications:
legislationadhominemwhich isthusdirected tothecourseofparticularproceedingsmaynot
alwaysamounttoaninterferencewiththefunctionsofthejudiciary
134.OfthestatutebeforetheBoard,LordPearcehadthistosay:
Butinthepresentcase,theirLordshipshavenodoubtthattherewassuchinterference;thatitwas
notonlythe likelybuttheintendedeffectofthe impugnedenactments;andthatitisfataltotheir
validity
135.OftheimpugnedlegislationLordPearcesaid:
Thetruenatureandpurposeoftheseenactmentsarerevealedintheirconjointimpactonthespecific
proceedingsinrespectofwhichtheyweredesigned,andtheytaketheircolour,inparticular,fromthe
alterationstheypurportedtoastheirultimateobjective,thepunishmentofthoseconvicted.
136.Inconclusion,LordPearceenvisionedtheerosionofjudicialpoweriftheActsbeforehimwere
valid.Hehadthistosay:
IfsuchActsasthesewerevalid,thejudicialpowercouldbewhollyabsorbedbythelegislativeand
takenoutofthehandsofjudgeswhatisdoneonce,ifitbeallowed,maybedoneagainandina
lesser
crisis
and
less
serious
circumstances.
And
thus
judicial
power
may
be
eroded
such
an
erosion
is
contrarytotheclearintentionoftheConstitution.
KeniloreavTheAttorneyGeneral
137.ThecaseofKeniloreawasadecisionoftheCourtofAppealoftheSolomonIslandsinwhichthe
NationalParliamenthad, inMarch1982,passed thePriceControlActof1982.AlthoughthePrice
ControlActhadneverbeenbroughtintoforce,ordersweremadeundertheActcontrollingtheretail
andwholesalepriceofbutanegas.CompanieswhichwereaffectedbytheOrdersbroughtproceedings
againsttheAttorneyGeneralseekingadeclarationastotheinvalidityofOrdersmadeundertheAct,
onthegroundthattheActhadneverbeenbroughtintoforce.
138.Whileproceedingswerestillpending,theNationalParliamentpassedasecondAct:thePrice
Control (RetrospectiveOperation and validation)Actof 1983. The effectof the 1983Actwas to
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
19/68
validateretrospectivelyOrderswhichhadbeenmadeunderthe1982Act,priortoitsentryintoforce.
Theimpugnedsectionsofthe1983Actweresections4and5.
139.Thetermsofsections4and5ofthePriceControl(RetrospectiveOperation&Validation)Act
1983aresetoutbelowforthepurposeofcomparingtheimpugnedsectionswiththosethatpresently
occupythe
Courts
attention.
140.Section4providedasfollows:
TheprincipalActisherebyamendedbyinsertingimmediatelyaftersection10thefollowingsection
asfrom26thMarch,1982
11.Thevalidityoroperationofanordermadeundersections4or6shallnotbeaffectedbynon
complianceofprovisionscontainedinsection3(2)orsection4(5)orsection10(3)northevalidity
oroperationofanysuchordershallbecalled inquestionbyorbeforeanycourtmerelyonthe
groundsofthenoncomplianceorinadequatecompliancewithanysuchprovision
141.Theimpugnedsection5wasmoreextensiveprovidingatsection5(C):
Nocourt
shall
entertain
any
legal
proceedings
:(a)questioningthevalidityandcontinuedoperationofanyaction;or
(b)claiminganycompensationforlossfoundedonanyaction,anditscontinuedoperationmerely
onthegroundthatwhentheactionwastakentheprincipalActhadnotcomeintooperation
142.Section5(d)containedanexpressdirectiontotheCourtinthefollowingterms:
(d)whereanyimpugnedlegalproceedingsinstitutedonanysuchgroundbependinginanycourt
thecourtshallexerciseitsjurisdictionbydecidingthatimpugnedlegalproceedings
a.byupholdingthevalidityoftheactionandofitscontinuedoperation;or
b.byrejectingtheclaimforcompensationforwardedonthataction
onthegroundthattheprincipalActwasvalidlyandeffectivelyinoperationandcontinuedtobein
such
operation
on
the
date
of
the
action
on
the
ground
that
the
non
compliance
...
with
any
directory
provisionhasnotaffectedthevalidityorcontinuedoperationoftheaction
143.ConnollyJ.A.atpage7ofthereportreferredtothedecisionoftheJudicialCommitteeofthe
PrivyCouncil inLiyanagevtheQueen .Noting that theConstitutionofCeyloncontainsprovisions
similartothoseofSolomonIslands,ConnollyJ.A.madethefollowingstatementofprinciple,
theConstitutionofSolomonIslandsdoesindeedprovideforaseparationofpowersandthatthe
separatepowerinthejudicatureundertheConstitutioncannotbeusurpedorinfringedeitherbythe
executiveorthelegislative.UndertheConstitutionasitstandsthejudicialpowercannotbeabsorbed
bythelegislatureandtakenoutofthehandsofthejudges.Itisthedutyofthiscourttoensure
that there isnot erosionof thejudicialpowerwithout themachinery of the amendmentof the
Constitution
being
employed
144.ConnollyJ.A.quotedtheevergreenpronouncementofLordDiplockinHindsvR:
The new constitutions were evolutionary not revolutionary. They provided for continuity of
governmentthroughsuccessorinstitutionslegislature,executiveandjudicialofwhichmemberswere
tobeselectedinadifferentway
145.ConnollyJ.A.squotationfromHindscontinued:
WhathoweverisimplicitintheverystructureoftheconstitutionontheWestminsterModelisthat
judicialpower,howeveritistobedistributedfromtimetotimebetweenvariouscourtsistocontinue
tobevestedinpersonsappointedtoholdjudicialofficeinthemannerandonthetermslaiddownin
thechapterdealingwiththejudicatureeventhoughthisisnotexpresslystatedintheconstitution
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
20/68
146. Inapplying theprinciplesenunciatedbyLordPearce in Liyanage ,Connolly J.A. restated the
principleinthisway:
Itiswhenthelegislationceasestobeofageneralcharacterandisdirectedtoaparticularpersonand
evenmore sowhen it is foundedonpast acts that thedifficultquestion ariseswhether the line
betweenthelegislativeandthejudicialpowerhasbeentransgressed.
147.ConnollyJ.A.issuedthiscaveat:
it isnoteveryenactmentwhichcanbedescribedasadhominemandexpost factowhichwill
infringeandusurpthejudicialpower.Instancesoflegislationwhichisplainlybeyondthepowerofthe
legislaturearegivenbyLordPearceandtheyincludethepassingofanActofattainderagainstsome
personorlegislationwhichinstructsaJudgetobringaverdictofguiltyagainstsomeonewhoisbeing
tried
148.ConnollyJ.A.continued:
What isclearhowever isthat legislationwhich isnotpassedforthegeneralityofthecitizensbut
which isclearlyaimedatknown individuals, thealterations in the lawnotbeing intended for the
generalityof
the
citizens
or
designed
as
any
improvement
of
general
law
and
directed
at
aparticular
pending litigation and to have no effect once that litigation is terminated will amount to such
transgression
149.ConnollyJ.A.concludedatlengththateachcasemustbedecidedinthelightofitsownfactsand
circumstances.Byhisjudgmentsuchcircumstancesincluded:
thetruepurposeofthelegislationthesituationtowhichitwasdirectedandtheextenttowhichthe
legislationaffects,bywayofdirectionor restriction thediscretionorjudgmentof thejudiciary in
specificproceedings
150.ApplyingthestatedprinciplestotheimpugnedlegislationConnollyJ.A.heldthatparagraphs(d)
and
(e)
of
section
5
in
terms
direct
the
High
Court
as
to
the
manner
in
which
it
should
deal
with
pending
litigation.ConnollyJ.A.observedaswellthattheimpugnedsection:
forbidthecourttoexecuteitsownjudgment.
151.ThenechoingthesentimentsofLordPearceinLiyanage,Connollypresaged:
ifsuchprovisionasthesewerevalidthejudicialpowercouldbewhollyabsorbedbythelegislation
andtakenoutofthehandsofJudges.
152.Inconclusion,ConnollyJ.A.grantedadeclarationthatparagraphs(d)and(e)ofsection5ofthe
PriceControl(RetrospectiveOperationandValidation)ActwerebeyondthepoweroftheNational
Parliamentandthereforeinvalid.
153.Theothertwojusticesofappeal,JusticesWhiteandPrattbothagreedwiththedecisionofJustice
ofAppealConnolly.ThejudgmentofPrattJ.A.wassignificantinhisconcludingparagraphwherethe
learnedJusticeofAppealhadthistosayatpage12:
ThelegislaturehasdeprivedtheCourtentirelyofdiscretionandhassimplydirectedtheJudgeasif
heweresomeclerkapplyingarubbertosomeformofCourtorder
StateofMauritiusvKhoyratty
154.KhoyrattywasadecisionoftheJudicialCommitteeofthePrivyCouncilandwasrelieduponby
the claimants in these proceedings as authority for the proposition that the term sovereign
democratic state has substantive content and significance, which includes the doctrine of the
separationofpowersbetweentheexecutive,thelegislatureandthejudiciary.
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
21/68
155.Therespondent,AbdoolRachidKhoyratty,hadbeenchargedwithanoffencelistedundersection
32oftheDangerousDrugsAct,2000asoneinrespectofwhichtheaccusedwouldnotbeentitledto
bailuntilthefinaldeterminationofproceedingsagainstthem.
156.Havingbeendeniedbail,Khoyrattymounted a constitutional challengenotonly against the
DangerousDrugs
Act
2000
which
identified
the
offences
for
which
bail
would
be
excluded,
but
also
againsttheConstitutionofMauritius(Amendment)Actof1994whichpavedthewayfortheActof
2000.
157. The Constitution of Mauritius (Amendment) Act 1994 purported to amend constitutional
provisionsforbailatsection5oftheConstitution.The1994Actwaspassedwithathreequarters
majority,whichwastherequisitemajorityforanamendmenttosection5.
158.Notwithstandingthespecialmajoritywithwhichsection5wasamended,thecriticalquestion,in
thewordsofLordRodgerofEarlsferry,waswhether:
by purporting to insert section 5(3A)into the Constitution, section 2 of the 1994 Act had in
substancesought
not
only
to
amend
section
5
but
also
to
alter
the
form
of
the
democratic
state
guaranteedbysection1oftheConstitution
159.Thiscriticalquestionwasanswered in theaffirmativeby theirLordshipsonwhosejudgment
learnedQueensCounselfortheclaimantrelied.ReferringtolearninginAhneevTheDirectorofPublic
ProsecutionsandHindsvRLordSteynhadthistosay:
WhilethejudgmentinAhneescase[1999]2AC294doesnotaffordtheanswertothequestionunder
considerationitisrelevantinemphasising:
a.thatMauritiusisademocraticstatebasedontheruleoflaw.
b.thattheprincipleofseparationofpowersisentrenched.
c.thatonebranchofgovernmentmaynottrespassontheprovinceofanyotherinconflictwiththe
principle
of
separation
of
powers
160.Atparagraph12ofhisjudgment,LordSteynidentifiedanumberofconceptsinvolvedintheidea
ofdemocracy.ThelearnedLawLordformulatedtheminthisway:
Thefirstisthatpeopleshoulddecidewhoshouldgovernthem.Secondlythereistheprinciplethat
fundamentalrightsshouldbeprotectedbyanimpartialandindependentjudiciary.Thirdlyinorderto
achieveareconciliationbetweentheinevitabletensionsbetweentheseideas,aseparationofpowers
betweentheexecutivethelegislatureandthejudiciaryisnecessary
161. Inthecourseofhisjudgment,LordSteyn,quoted fromhisownjudgment inRvAndersonv
SecretaryofStatefortheHomeDepartment:
In
R
v
Trade
Practices
Tribunal,
Exp.
Tasmanian
Breweries
Party
Ltd
(1970)
123
CLR
Windeyer
J
explainedthedifficultyofdefiningthejudicialfunctionasflows:Theconceptseemstometodefy
perhaps itwerebettertosaytranscendpurelyabstractconceptualanalysis.Itinevitablyattracts
considerationofpredominantcharacteristicsandalsoinvitescomparisonwithhistoricfunctionsand
processesofcourtsoflaw
162.InrespectoftheobservationofWindeyerJLordSteyncommentedasfollows:
Nevertheless, ithas longbeensettled inAustralia that thepower todetermine responsibility for
crimeandpunishmentforitscommissionisafunctionwhichbelongsexclusivelytothecourts.Ithas
beensaidthattheselectionofpunishmentisanintegralpartoftheadministrationofjusticeandas
suchcannotbecommittedtothehandsoftheexecutive
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
22/68
163. Lord Steyn referred to and quoted Lord Bingham in A v Secretary of State for the Home
Department:
thefunctionofindependentjudgeschargedtointerpretandapplythelawisuniversallyrecognized
asacardinalfeatureofthemoderndemocraticstate,acornerstoneoftheruleoflawitself.
164.Lord
Steyn
noted
that
the
quoted
decisions,
while
not
conclusive
of
the
issue
before
their
Lordships:
gave important colour to the words of section 1 of the Constitution that Mauritius shall be a
democraticstate
165.Atparagraph15ofhisjudgment,LordSteynunderscoredtheimportanceoftheprovisionthat
Mauritiusshallbeademocraticstate.HisLordshipemphasizedthatthisprovisionwasmorethan
amerepreambleoraguidetointerpretation.LordSteynhadthistosay:
In this respect it is to be distinguished frommany other constitutional provisions. It is of first
importancethattheprovisionthatMauritiusshallbeademocraticstateisanoperativeandbinding
provision. ItsverysubjectmatterandplaceattheverybeginningoftheConstitutionunderlies its
importance
166.Ultimately,theirLordshipsagreedthattheConstitutionofMauritiusAmendmentAct,1994which
purportedtoamendConstitutionalprovisionsrelatingtothegrantofbail, in factcontravenedthe
provisionbywhichMauritiuswasdeclaredtobeasovereigndemocraticstate.
167.Section5(3A)oftheConstitutionaswellastheDangerousDrugsActof2000weredeclaredtobe
inconsistentwiththeConstitutionandthereforevoid.
TheDirectorofPublicProsecutionsvMollison
168.Thewellknown factsofMollisonbeginwith thesixteenyearold respondent,whohadbeen
convicted
of
murder
and
sentenced
to
be
detained
pursuant
to
section
29
of
the
Juveniles
Act,
1951
atthepleasureoftheGovernorGeneral.
169.TheCourtofAppealof Jamaicaheld that this sentencewasunconstitutional.At the Judicial
CommitteeofthePrivyCouncil,theirLordshipsdismissedtheappealoftheDirectorandheldthat
section29oftheActof1951hadinfringedtheprincipleofseparationofpowersbyconferringonthe
GovernorGeneral,asanofficeroftheexecutive,thepowertodetermineanoffenderspunishment.
170.CitingthedecisionoftheHouseofLordsinR(Anderson)vSecretaryofState,LordBinghamof
Cornhillcommentedasfollowsontheexerciseofdeterminingthelengthofanoffendersdetention:
Itisclearthatsuchdeterminationisforalllegalandpracticalpurposesasentencingexercise.
171.
At
page
422
of
the
Report,
Lord
Bingham
noted
the
concession
made
by
the
Director
that
section
29(1)contravenedrightstolibertyandtotrialbyafairasguaranteedbytheConstitutionatsections
15(1)(b)and20(1)respectivelyandnotedfurtherthatMr.FitzgeraldQCfortheRespondentbasedhis
primary attack not on incompatibilitywith specific rights but on its incompatibility with the
separation ofjudicial from executive powerwhichwas a fundamental principle onwhich the
Constitutionwasbuilt
172.LordBingham referred toHindsvTheQueen , thewater shedauthoritywhereLordDiplock
delivered the landmark expositionon the doctrine of the separationofpowers and observed as
follows:
ItdoesindeedappearthatthesentencingprovisionsunderchallengeintheHindscasewereleadto
beunconstitutionalnotbecauseoftheirrepugnancytoanyoftherightsguaranteedbysections in
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
23/68
Chapter IIIof theConstitutionbutbecauseof their incompatibilitywith aprincipleonwhich the
Constitutionitselfwasheldtobefounded(seeDPPVMollison[2003]atAC411at424).
173.LordBinghamofCornhillthenobserved:
WhateveroverlaptheremaybeunderconstitutionsontheWestminsterModelbetweentheexercise
ofexecutive
and
executive
powers,
the
separation
between
the
exercise
of
judicial
powers
on
the
one
handand legislativeandexecutivepowerson theother istotaloreffectivelyso.Suchseparation,
based on the rule of law, was recently described by Lord Steyn as a characteristic feature of
democracies.IntheopinionoftheBoard,Mr.Fitzgeraldhadmadegoodhischallengetosection29
based on its incompatibility with the constitutional principle that judicial functions must be
exercisedbythejudiciaryandnotbytheexecutive.
174. LordBingham then considered the submissionof theDirector that section29was saved as
existing legislation. Quoting the learning of Lord Diplock in Hinds v The Queen Lord Bingham
commentedthattheBoardfoundthisapuzzlingpassage.
175.Finally
holding
that
Lord
Diplocks
statement
in
Hinds
vR
at
page
228
had
been
obiter,
Lord
Binghamruledasfollows:
NowhereintheOrderortheConstitutionistheretobefoundsocomprehensiveasavingprovision
whichwould indeedunderminetheeffectofsection2oftheConstitution. (SeeTheDirectorof
PublicProsecutionsvMollison[2003]2AC411at425D).(Section2oftheConstitutionprovides:
ifanyotherlawisonconsistentwiththisConstitution,thisConstitutionshallprevailandtheother
lawshall,totheextentoftheinconsistencybevoid
176.The casesofDPPvMollison,Khoyratty vA.G. andHinds vRpay tribute to theprincipleof
separationofpowersandthefundamentalpositionwhichitoccupiesinConstitutionsbasedonthe
Westminstermodel.Theseauthoritiesassertthatanylawwhichisincompatiblewiththeprincipleis
void
even
if
it
was
existing
law
or
if
it
had
been
enacted
with
a
constitutionally
prescribed
special
majority.
IanSeepersadandRoodalPanchoovA.G.
177.The appellants, Seepersad andRoodalPanchoo,hadbeen convicted in1986of theheinous
murderoftwoelderlywomen.Becausetheappellantswereminorswhenthecrimeswerecommitted,
theywere not sentenced to death, butwere sentenced to be detained at the States pleasure,
pursuanttosection79oftheChildrenActCh.46:01.
178.In2003,theAppellantsinstitutedproceedingsundersection14oftheConstitutionclaimingthat
the sentences which had been imposed on them offended the constitutional principle of the
separation
of
powers.
They
contended
as
well
that
the
failure
of
the
State
to
conduct
periodic
reviews
oftheirdetentioninfringedtheirfundamentalrightsundersections4and5oftheConstitution.
179.TheAppellantswerereleasedfromcustodyon26thJuly,2006.However,theycontinuedtopress
theirconstitutionalmotionsaswellas theirclaims forcompensation for the infringementoftheir
constitutionalrights.
180.TheirclaimsfordamageswereeventuallyheardbytheirLordshipsattheJudicialCommitteeof
the PrivyCouncil, and theunanimous decision of their Lordshipswasdeliveredby LordHopeof
Craighead.
181.Inthecourseofhisjudgment,LordHopeobservedthatsections79and81oftheChildrenAct
Ch.46:01hadbeenconsideredbyMendona J.(ashethenwas) inthecaseofChuckAttinvA.G.
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
24/68
(unreportedH.C.A.No.2175of2003.LordHopeobservedfurtherthatthejudgmentofMendonaJ.
hadfollowedthe lineofauthoritiescommencingwithHindsvR.[1977]RvSecretaryofStateExp.
Venables[1998]Ac407;BrownevR[2000]1AC45;TheDirectorofPublicProsecutionsvMollison
[2003]UKPC6.
182.At
paragraph
10
of
his
judgment,
Lord
Hope
distilled
the
law
which
was
established
by
the
cases
inthisway:
Thesecasesestablishthefollowingpropositions:
1...
2.TheseparationofpowersisabasicprincipleonwhichtheConstitutionofTrinidadandTobagois
founded.Parliamentcannotconsistentlywiththatprincipletransferfromthejudiciarytoanexecutive
bodyadiscretiontodeterminetheseverityofthepunishmenttobeinflicteduponanoffender.The
systemofpubliclawunderwhichthepeopleforwhomtheConstitutionwasprovidedwerealready
livingwhenittookeffectmustbeassumedtohaveevolvedinaccordancewiththatprinciple
183.Havingconsideredthecompetingsubmissions,theirLordshipsrestoredthefirstinstancedecision
thatthe
appellants
were
entitled
to
damages.
USv.Klein
184. In thedecisionof theSupremeCourtof theUnitedStates, theCourtheardamotionby the
AttorneyGeneraltoremandanappealfromtheCourtofClaims.Thiswasacourtestablishedin1855
forthepurposeofenablingClaimantsanavenueforexaminingandadjudicatingupontheirclaims.
185.ThefactswhichgaverisetothisdecisionaroseoutoftheAmericanCivilWarwhichtookplace
between 1861 and 1865. FourActs of Congresswerepassed between 1861 and 1867. TheActs
providedfortheseizureandforfeitureofpropertypassingbetweenloyalandinsurrectionarystates
(SeeActof13thJuly,1861)aswellasforthecollectionofabandonedandcapturedproperty(Actof
March,
12th
1863).
186.TheActof17thJuly,1862authorizedthePresidenttoofferpardonsonconditionsthathesaw
fitontheconditionthatthebeneficiaryofthepardontookaprescribedoath.Thiswasrepealedin
1867.
187.TheSupremeCourtwas,however,concernedwithaprovisocontainedintheAppropriationAct
of1870.Theprovisocontainedthefollowingdirections:
NopardonoramnestygrantedbythePresidentshallbeadmissibleinevidenceonthepartofany
ClaimantinthecourtofclaimsasevidenceinsupportofanyclaimagainsttheUnitedSates..
AndinallcaseswherejudgmentshallhaveheretoforerenderedintheCourtofClaims..infavorof
any
Claimant.this
Court
shall
on
appeal
have
no
further
jurisdiction
and
shall
dismiss
the
same
for
wantofjurisdiction.
188.Theprovisoalsocontainedthefollowingdirection:
suchpardonandacceptanceshallbetakenanddeemedinsuchsuit.conclusiveevidencethatsuch
person did take part in and give aid and comfort to the late rebellion.and on proof of such
pardon..thejurisdictionofthiscourt..shallceaseandthecourtshallforthwithdismissthesuit.
189.ThegeneralquestionwasoutlinedbythelearnedChiefJusticeinthisway:
.whetherornottheproviso.containedintheappropriationact.debarstheDefendantinerror
from recoveringasadministratorofV.F.Wilson (deceased) theproceedsof certain cotton.which
came into the possession of agents of the Treasury Department as captured or abandoned
property..
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
25/68
190.ThelearnedChiefJusticeconcludedthatproceedsofpropertywhichcametothepossessionof
thegovernmentbycaptureorabandonmentwasnotdivestedoutoftheoriginalowner.
191.AstotheeffectoftheprovisothelearnedChiefJusticehadthistosay:
Butthe
language
of
the
proviso
shows
plainly
that
it
does
not
intend
to
withhold
appellate
jurisdiction
exceptasameanstoanend.Itsgreatandcontrollingpurposeistodenytopardonsgrantedbythe
PresidenttheeffectwhichthisCourthadadjudgedthentohave.
192.TheChiefJusticecontinued:
It(theproviso)providesthatwheneveritshallappearthatanyjudgmentofthecourtofclaimsshall
havebeensoundedonsuchpardons.theSupremeCourtshallhavenofurtherjurisdictionandshall
dismissthesameforwantofjurisdiction.
193.ThelearnedChiefJusticeanalyzedtheeffectoftheprovisointhisway:
Thecourthasjurisdictionofthecausetoagivenpointbutwhenitascertainsthatacertainstateof
thingsexist,itsjurisdictionistoceaseanditisrequiredtodismissthecauseforwantofjurisdiction.
194.ThelearnedChiefJusticecommentedasfollows:
In the case before us no new circumstances have been created by legislation. But the court is
forbiddentogiveeffecttotheevidencewhichinitsownjudgmentsuchevidenceshouldhave.
195.BeforeemphasizingthevitalimportanceofseparatingpowersthelearnedChiefJusticeruled
finally:
WemustthinkthatCongresshasinadvertentlypassedthelimitwhichseparatesthelegislativefrom
thejudicialpower
AustralianAuthorities
196.
Learned
Queens
Counsel
for
the
Claimant
relied
on
a
number
of
Australian
authorities.
These
provide examples of judicial consideration of legislation, which were impugned as constituting
legislativeinterferencewiththejudicialprocess.Theyprovideprecedentsofthemannerinwhichthe
courtwill decidewhether the impugned legislation has crossed the line, alluded to in Liyanage,
betweeninterferenceandnoninterference.Asummaryofthecasesfollow.
ChuKhengLimvMinisterforImmigration,LocalGovernmentandEthnicAffairs
197.ChuKhengLimvMinisterforImmigration,alsoknownasTheCambodianBoatPeopleCasewas
adecisionof theHighCourtofAustralia.TheplaintiffswereCambodianNationalswhoarrived in
Australia in twogroups: the first inNovember1989and the second inMarch1990.Noneof the
plaintiffsheldvalidentrypermits.
198.TheyweredetainedincustodyandmadeunsuccessfulapplicationstotherelevantMinisterfor
refugeestatus.TheplaintiffssoughtreviewsoftheMinistersdecision.TheFederalCourtofAustralia
setasidetheministerialdecisionsandremittedthemforreconsideration.
199.Whiletheapplicationsforreviewwerebeingheard,theParliamentoftheCommonwealthpassed
theMigrationAmendmentAct1992.TheMigrationAmendmentAct insertedanewDivisionwhich
providedforthedetractionofdesignatedpersons.OfrelevancetotheproceedingsbeforethisCourt
wassection54Rwhichprovidedasfollows:
Acourtisnottoorderthereleasefromcustodyofadesignatedperson.
200.Amajorityofthehighcourt(BrennanJ,DeeneJandDawsonJ)heldthatsection54Rconstituted
adirectiontothecourt;wasmanifestlyinexcessofthelegislativepower;andwastherefore,invalid.
-
7/28/2019 Ish and Steve Lose Section 34 Case
26/68
NicholasvtheQueen
201.ThiswasadecisionoftheHighCourtofAustralia,whichconsideredthevalidityofsection15Xof
theCrimes
Act
1914
as
amended
by
the
Crimes
Amendment
Controlled
Operations
Act
1996.
202.Thevalidityofsection15Xwasbroughtintoissuebytheapplicant,DavidMichaelNicholas,who
waschargedwith fournarcoticdrugoffences twoofwhichwerecontrary to section233Bof the
Customs Act. The offences involved drugswhichwere illegally imported into Australia by a law
enforcementofficer.
203.Ontheauthorityofanearlierdecision,RidgewayvtheQueen,theCourthadgrantedastayof
theprosecutiononthegroundthatthedrugshadbeenillegallyimportedbyanenforcementofficer.
204.TheCustomsAct1914wasthenamendedbytheCrimesAmendmentControlledOperationsAct
1996.This
amendment
introduced
anew
part,
Part
1AB,
which
provided
for
controlled
operations,
namelyoperationscarriedoutforthepurposeofobtainingevidencethatmayleadtotheprosecution
ofapersonundersection233BoftheAct.
205.WhenPart1ABenteredintoforcetheprosecutionappliedtohavethestaylifted.Inthecourse
ofthatapplicationaquestionaroseastothevalidityofsection15X,whichprovidesasfollows:
Indetermining,forthepurposesofaprosecutionforanoffenceagainstsection233BoftheCustom
Act1901.whetherevidencethatnarcoticgoodswereimportedintoAustraliaincontraventionofthe
CustomAct1901shouldbeadmitted,thefactthatalawenforcementofficercommittedanoffence
in importing thenarcoticgoodsor in aiding,abetting, counseling,procuringorbeingananyway
knowinglyconcernedintheirimportation,istobedisregarded.
206.TheApplicantlaunchedhisattackonsection15Xonthreegrounds:
Thesectioninvalidlypurportstodirectacourttoexerciseitsdiscretionarypowerinamannerwhich
isinconsistentwiththeessentialcharacterofacourtorwiththenatureofjudicialpower.
Secondly,thatsection15Xappliestoidentifiablecasesandisdirectedspecificallytotheaccusedin
thosecasesratherthantothepublicgenerally.
Thesectionconstitutesanattempt tosterilize theRidgewaydiscretion invalidlyundermines the
integrityofthecourtsprocessandpublicconfidenceintheadministrationofjustice.
207.ThemajorityoftheHighCourtofAustraliawasunanimousinrejectingallthreegroundsholding
thatsection15Xwasvalid.Inthecourseherjudgment,GaudronJreferredtoChuKhengLimvMinister
for
Immigration
(1992)
176
CLR
27
which
was
also
a
decision
of
the
High
Court
of
Australia.
In
that
case,itwassaidParliamentcannotmakealawwhichrequiresorauthorizesthecourtstoexe