Daniel (administrator for the estate of George Daniel (Deceased)) v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
JudgeLORD BROWN
Judgment Date09 August 2011
Neutral Citation[2011] UKPC 31
Docket NumberAppeal No 0101 of 2010
Date09 August 2011
CourtPrivy Council

[2011] UKPC 31

Privy Council

before

Lord Brown

Lord Wilson

Sir David Keene

Appeal No 0101 of 2010
Electra Daniel Administrator for the estate of George Daniel (deceased)
(Appellant)
and
The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
(Respondent)

Appellant

Sir Fenton Ramsahoye SC

Anand Beharrylal

(Instructed by Bankside Commercial Ltd)

Respondent

Peter Knox QC

(Instructed by Charles Russell LLP)

LORD BROWN
1

The Hall of Justice in Port of Spain houses Trinidad and Tobago's Supreme Court of Justice: the High Court (Assizes and Civil Courts), the Court of Appeal and the Probate Registry. It is the Republic's main court complex. Built in the mid- 1980s, unfortunately it omitted to make any special provision for the disabled, above all direct wheelchair access through the public entrance at the top of the steps on Knox Street. Down the years those confined to wheelchairs have instead been permitted on prior application to gain entry to the Hall of Justice by elevator reached through the basement car park.

2

Unsurprisingly this lack of public access and difficulties experienced too in using the court's witness boxes, jury boxes, public toilets and other such facilities increasingly became a matter of concern to the disabled and thus it was that George Daniel, President of the Trinidad and Tobago Chapter of Disabled Peoples International and himself confined to a wheelchair, on 8 March 2005 issued an originating motion pursuant to section 14 of the Constitution. (Sadly Mr Daniel died following the Court of Appeal hearing but although this further appeal to the Board is now maintained by his mother as Administrator ad litem for his estate, it is convenient to continue referring to him as the appellant.)

3

By the motion the appellant asserted the violation of three of his fundamental rights and freedoms under section 4 of the Constitution:

"(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;

(d) the right of the individual to equality of treatment from any public authority in the exercise of any functions;

(g) freedom of movement;"

4

Following the issue of the constitutional motion Mr Gary Kelly, the Court Executive Administrator at the Hall of Justice, issued tender invitations in December 2005 and January 2006, inviting an analysis of the building and its facilities and architectural solutions to the problems of access for the disabled. By an affidavit then sworn in the proceedings dated 24 March 2006 Mr Kelly stated that "the Judiciary is committed to addressing all recommendations provided by the Architectural Firm it has engaged within the shortest time that is feasible."

5

Following the hearing of the motion, Bereaux J gave judgment on 20 July 2007, upholding the appellant's complaint under section 4(a) but dismissing it under sections 4(d) and 4(g). It is sufficient for present purposes to set out the final few paragraphs of the judgment:

"26 … It is unacceptable that our physically impaired citizens, more so those who are wheelchair bound, must suffer the inconvenience and indignity of being wheeled into the Hall of Justice in so roundabout a manner [ie through the underground car park].

27 Our Constitution mandates that they be treated in a far more civil and dignified manner. It is in the Hall of Justice that our citizenry come to pursue and enforce their rights. Physical access to it is an important part of their right to the protection of the law and ultimately to due process. They must be able to pursue their remedies and to witness proceedings, the latter of which is an important part of the legal process. It allows the litigant and the public the opportunity to view and to assess the fairness of the legal process. Without actual physical access to witness the process, credibility of the legal system will be undermined. Such access must be readily available to all. It is not sufficient that one's attorney can access it. The physically impaired must themselves have easy and direct access to the Hall of Justice to personally pursue the upholding of their rights and to witness proceedings if they so choose. 'Liberty' requires that they have that option. A lack of unimpeded access can act as a disincentive to the legitimate pursuit of one's legal rights. Such access may be to able-bodied persons so routine as to seem trivial but for persons who are physically impaired such physical access is neither trivial nor routine. It can be a daily challenge. But such access is a right not an option and is indelibly part of due process of law.

28 I accept that there are very significant challenges posed to the modification of courtrooms of the Hall of Justice so as to accommodate wheelchair bound members of our society in jury boxes of the courts of the Hall of Justice and to allow them to serve as jurors. But I certainly do not accept...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • BS v Ayers-Caesar and Attorney General; SS v Ayers-caesar et Al
    • Trinidad & Tobago
    • High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
    • 24 May 2016
    ...for the court to determine the appropriate remedy. This was also the point made by the Privy Council in Daniel v. the Attorney General [2011] 80 WIR 456 (PC) and in James v. the Attorney General (2010) 78 WIR 443 (PC), where it was stated “to treat entitlement to monetary compensation as au......
  • Seepersad (A Minor) v Ayers-Caesar and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Privy Council
    • 18 February 2019
    ...final orders akin to mandatory injunctive orders in constitutional proceedings. And in Daniel v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2011] UKPC 31; 80 WIR 456, the Court of Appeal and Privy Council upheld the mandatory order made by the trial judge. There were also many death penalty ca......
  • Ss v Ayers-caesar et Al
    • Trinidad & Tobago
    • Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago)
    • 28 April 2016
    ...(at paragraph 8). And, acceptance of the mandatory order was impliedly recognized (at paragraph 11)] and to the Privy Council, [ [2011] U.K.P.C. 31] and there were no changes to the mandatory injunctive order made by the trial judge. Indeed, it was upheld. 50 Finally, there are the many dea......
  • Colin Simmons v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
    • Trinidad & Tobago
    • Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago)
    • 29 April 2022
    ...and order, if upheld on both liability and quantum, are a more than sufficient vindication of the appellant's rights. See Daniel v. AG [2011] UKPC 31 per Lord Brown at paragraphs 6 to 30 (30) Mr. Masaisai points to the fact that the claim has been amended to seek only declaratory relief. I......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT