Boodhoo and Another v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Carswell |
| Judgment Date | 01 April 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] UKPC 17 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 8 of 2003 |
| Date | 01 April 2004 |
[2004] UKPC 17
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
Lord Hope of Craighead
Baroness Hale of Richmond
Lord Carswell
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Privy Council
[Delivered by Lord Carswell]
The law's delays have been the subject of complaint from litigants for many centuries, and it behoves all courts to make proper efforts to ensure that the quality of justice is not adversely affected by delay in dealing with the cases which are brought before them, whether in bringing them on for hearing or in issuing decisions when they have been heard. In the present appeal the appellants claim that their constitutional rights under the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago have been infringed in consequence of delay in issuing a decision of the Court of Appeal of that state.
The appellants are the chairman and secretary respectively of the Sanatan Dharma Sudhar Sabha, a body of devotees of the Hindu religion who carry on their religious, educational and cultural activities at the El Socorro Mandir, a temple in San Juan. In 1987 a dispute arose between the Sabha and Mr Deo Somaree Jammuna, who put up a fence on a track leading to the Mandir. The appellants issued proceedings on behalf of themselves and all other members of the Sabha, claiming declarations and injunctions. The action was heard over a number of days, commencing on 5 December 1988, and on 14 April 1989 the trial judge (Hamel-Smith J) dismissed the appellants' claim with costs.
The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal and the appeal eventually was heard (before Ibrahim, Gopeesingh, Permanand JJA) in May 1996. Judgment was reserved, but before it was prepared or given one of the judges of the court, Gopeesingh JA, who had been in apparent good health, died suddenly on 17 July 1997. The Court of Appeal proposed to list the appeal for hearing de novo in February 1998, but both parties sought assistance from the Attorney General for the costs of the rehearing. The appeal was relisted for hearing on 6 April 1998 (before Hosein, Permanand and Jones JJA). No assistance for the costs was forthcoming and the appellants claimed to be unable to afford to pay for another hearing.
At some time before the rehearing Ibrahim JA, another of the judges who had heard the case in the Court of Appeal, recused himself from taking part in the rehearing, on the ground that he had only recently realised that he knew the brother of one of the parties quite well.
On 3 April 1998 the appellants issued a motion in the High Court, claiming declarations that their constitutional rights had been infringed by the delay of the Court of Appeal in giving judgment and seeking an order for monetary compensation. They also sought a conservatory order staying the appeal listed for 6 April. At the hearing on 6 April counsel for the appellants informed the court that they were seeking a conservatory order and asked for an adjournment. The Court of Appeal refused an adjournment and, as no argument in support of the appeal was presented to them they dismissed it for want of prosecution. Leave to appeal to the Privy Council against this decision was subsequently given by the Court of Appeal (de la Bastide CJ, Permanand and Jones JJA) on 11 May 1998, but the appellants did not pursue it and the appeal was dismissed by an order of the Privy Council on 12 October 2000.
The constitutional motion was heard in the High Court in January 1999 before Bereaux J, who gave a reserved judgment in writing on 16 August 1999, dismissing the appellants' motion. They appealed to the Court of Appeal (de la Bastide CJ, Nelson and Lucky JJA), which dismissed the appeal in a written judgment given on 14 December 2001 by de la Bastide CJ, with which the other members of the court agreed. The appeal before their Lordships against this decision was brought by leave of the Court of Appeal.
The relevant parts of the Constitution are as follows:
"4. It is hereby recognised and declared that in Trinidad and Tobago there have existed and shall continue to exist, without discrimination by reason of race, origin, colour, religion or sex, the following fundamental human rights and freedoms, namely –
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
…
5(1) Except as is otherwise expressly provided in this Chapter and in section 54, no law may abrogate, abridge or infringe or authorise the abrogation, abridgement or infringement of any of the rights and freedoms hereinbefore recognised and declared.
(2) Without prejudice to subsection (1), but subject to this Chapter and to section 54, Parliament may not
…
(e) deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations;
…
(h) deprive a person of the right to such procedural provisions as are necessary for the purpose of giving effect and protection to the aforesaid rights and freedoms.
14(1) For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that if any person alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him, then without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter which is lawfully available, that person may apply to the High Court for redress by way of originating motion.
(2) The High Court shall have original jurisdiction –
(a) to hear and determine any application made by any person in pursuance of subsection (1) …"
The evidence before the High Court was on affidavit and no oral evidence was given. The respondent filed evidence which set out the difficulties faced by the courts in Trinidad and Tobago because of overcrowded lists and lack of judicial resources and the efforts which had been made to reduce the consequent delays. Details were also furnished of the workload of Gopeesingh JA. On this evidence Bereaux J held that, in the context of Trinidad and Tobago and its resources, the period of time taken to deal with the appellants' appeal was not unreasonable. Their Lordships do not find it necessary to express an opinion on this finding, since the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago, unlike those...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beacher v R
...Richards, Solicitor-General, and T.N. Ward, Crown Counsel, for the Crown. Cases cited: (1) Boodhoo v. Att. Gen. (Trinidad & Tobago), [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1689; (2004), 18 BHRC 429; 101 (15) L.S. Gaz. 28; [2004] UKPC 17, dicta of Lord Carswell applied. (2) R. v. Gray, [1995] 2 Cr. App. R. 100; [1......
-
Antonia Martial Claimant v The Public Service Board of Appeal Defendant [ECSC]
...Durity v. The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago4 for this proposition. He also referred to Jerome Boodhoo (President) and Anr. v. The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago5 on the issue of delay in delivery of decision and the distinction to be drawn between a matter that is yet to ......
-
Surratt v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
...The Board is familiar with some of the problems which may have led the Commission to say what it did: see, for example, Boodhoo v Attorney General for Trinidad and Tobago [2004] UKPC 17. The Commission recommended that a Tribunal be set up within the Equal Opportunities Commission and that......
-
Friend v Brooker
...217 ALR 452 at 462–463; Laminex (Australia) Pty Ltd v Smeeth [1999] NSWCA 462 (Mason P, Meagher and Beazley JJA); Boodhoo v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2004] 1 WLR 1689; Expectation Pty Ltd v PRD Realty Pty Ltd (2004) 140 FCR 17; Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planni......