Everton Welch v Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Kerr |
| Judgment Date | 09 July 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] UKPC 21 |
| Date | 09 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No 0041 of 2012 |
| Court | Privy Council |
[2013] UKPC 21
Lord Hope
Lady Hale
Lord Kerr
Lord Wilson
Lord Hughes
Appeal No 0041 of 2012
Privy Council
Appellant Dr David Dorsett Ph.D Mr Fitzmore Harris (Instructed by MA Law (Solicitors) LLP)
Respondent Justin Simon QC (Attorney General) Carla Brookes-Harris (Crown Solicitor) (Instructed by Charles Russell LLP)
Heard on 24 April 2013
In the early hours of 8 January 1993, Everton Welch and Eustace Armstrong were disturbed by Rolston Samuel while they were engaged in burglary of Mr Samuel's house. Welch and Armstrong turned on Mr Samuel and beat him so severely that he died of his injuries some short time later. Post mortem examination of Mr Samuel's body established that he had sustained multiple wounds to his face, scalp and neck.
Welch was two months short of his eighteenth birthday at the time of the murder. He was arrested on 10 February 1993. He was held in custody until his trial in June 1994. On 20 June 1994 he was convicted of Mr Samuel's murder and was sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. He remained in prison on foot of this sentence until 14 December 2011. The sentence was passed under section 3(1) of the Offences against the Person Act. In its material part this provides:
"Upon every conviction for murder, the court shall pronounce sentence of death … provided that sentence of death shall not be pronounced on or recorded against a person convicted of an offence if it appears to the court that at the time when the offence was committed he was under the age of eighteen years; but in lieu thereof the court shall sentence him to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure; and if so sentenced he shall be liable to be detained in such place and under such conditions as the Governor-General may direct …"
In Browne v The Queen [2000] 1 AC 45, the Board, following the decision of the House of Lords in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p.Venables [1998] AC 407, held that a sentence of detention at the Governor-General's pleasure was contrary to the constitution of Saint Christopher and Nevis because it constituted a deprivation of liberty otherwise than in execution of an order or sentence of the court. Since the Governor-General was part of the executive and since the selection of punishment was an integral part of the administration of justice, a sentence which depended on the pleasure of the Governor-General was not compatible with the constitutional separation of powers.
In Director of Public Prosecutions of Jamaica v Mollison [2003] 2 AC 411 the respondent had been convicted of a murder committed when he was 16 years old and was sentenced to be detained during the Governor-General's pleasure in accordance with section 29 of the Juveniles Act I951. On his appeal against sentence the Court of Appeal of Jamaica ruled that the sentence was unconstitutional and that section 29 should be modified in accordance with section 4(1) of the Jamaica (Constitution) Order in Council 1962 ( SI 1962/1550) to provide for detention at the court's pleasure. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed that decision to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Board, dismissing the appeal, held that, by giving the Governor-General as an officer of the executive the power to determine the measure of an offender's punishment, section 29 of the 1951 Act infringed the principle of the separation of powers implicit in all constitutions based on the Westminster model, including that of Jamaica; that section 4(1) of the 1962 Order empowered the court to modify and adapt existing laws so as to bring them into conformity with the Constitution; and that, accordingly, section 29 of the 1951 Act ought to be modified throughout by substituting the words "the court" for "Her Majesty" or "the Governor-General".
Section 5(1)(b) of the Antigua and Barbuba Constitution Order 1981 provides that no person shall be deprived of his liberty save as may be authorised by law in execution of the sentence or order of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been convicted. On foot of this provision and in light of the decisions of the Board in Browne and Mollison, Everton Welch applied on 21 December 2009 for a declaration that his right to liberty under section 5 of the Constitution had been contravened on the basis that the sentence of detention during Her Majesty's pleasure was unconstitutional. He claimed other relief including an order that he was entitled to compensation for deprivation of his liberty. That claim was made under section 5(7) of the Constitution. It provides:
"Any person who is unlawfully arrested or detained by any other person shall, subject to such defences as may be provided by law, be entitled to compensation for such unlawful arrest or detention from the person who made the arrest or effected the detention, from any person or authority on whose behalf the person making the arrest or effecting the detention was acting or from them both …"
Delivering judgment in the High Court on 4 March 2011 Michel J held that in accordance with the Board's decisions in Browne and Mollison section 3(1) of the Offences against the Person Act contravened the Constitution and that the sentence imposed on Welch was invalid. He further held that the section should be modified by substituting "the court's pleasure" for "Her Majesty's pleasure". The sentence on Welch was therefore "corrected" to a sentence of detention at the court's pleasure. In para 21 of his judgment Michel J ordered that a review of the prisoner's detention should be undertaken:
"21. The court directs that the claimant should be brought before a court at the earliest convenient time on an application to review the detention of the claimant at Her Majesty's Prison from 1993 to 2011 so that the court can make its pleasure known in relation to the continued detention of the claimant. It may well be that the time already served in prison by the claimant and his behaviour whilst in prison may earn him immediate release from prison, but this is to be determined by the court upon application by the claimant to the court to make known its pleasure."
The review ordered by Michel J took place before Floyd J on 28 October 2011. On 14 December 2011 the judge gave his ruling. Having reviewed a number of authorities and the appellant's personal circumstances, he concluded that "to incarcerate Mr Everton Welch any further would not serve the interests of justice". Welch's immediate release was ordered.
In delivering judgment on the appellant's claim in March 2011, Michel J stated at para 22 that he did not consider that "any award of damages – whether compensatory or exemplary – [was] appropriate". An appeal against this judgment was heard before the Court of Appeal (Pereira P, Baptiste JA, and Mitchell JA (acting)) on 19 May 2011. The appeal was dismissed. In a short ex tempore ruling, Mitchell JA (acting), delivering the judgment of the court, stated that the appellant was not entitled to compensation as he "would have been imprisoned in any event".
The basis on which the Court of Appeal concluded that the appellant would have been in prison "in any event" was not explained and the Board is satisfied that, at the time that its judgment was delivered, the court did not have material before it on which it could properly reach that conclusion. The review of the appellant's sentence which Michel J had ordered did not take place until some five months after the Court of Appeal had given its decision. The review of the relevant judicial authorities carried out subsequently by Floyd J amply demonstrates that a period served of significantly less than that which the appellant had already served (of just less than 19 years) might well have been the outcome of a constitutionally correct sentence.
On the hearing before Floyd J, counsel for Welch had relied principally on two previously decided cases on sentencing, Elvon Barry v The Queen ( unreported) 14 May 2007 (ECSC Criminal Appeals Nos 5, 9 and 10 of 2004 and Peter Solomon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kevin Simmonds v The Minister of Labour and Social Security
...wrongdoing. 145 The Privy Council again considered this provision in the case of Everton Welch v Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda [2013] UKPC 21, Privy Council Appeal No 0041 of 2012. Lord Kerr delivering the judgment of the Board said at (para 19): It may perhaps be said that if th......
-
Attorney General v Anthony Henry
...(delivered 2nd October 2020, unreported). 84 See also Dufour and Others v Henelair Corporation Ltd and Others (1996) 52 WIR 188. 85 [2013] UKPC 21. 86 [2009] UKPC 11. See also Thompson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1998] 1 QB 87 Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Ram......
-
Lewis v Australian Capital Territory
...Warwick v Foulkes (1844) 12 M&W 507 ; 152 ER 1298 Watson v Marshall (1971) 124 CLR 621 Welch v Attorney-General of Antigua and Barbados [2013] UKPC 21 White v South Australia [2010] SASC 95 ; 106 SASR 521 Williams v Chief Inspector of Factories [1924] VLR 321 Woolley v Phillips (Unreported,......
-
Mervin Cameron v The Attorney General
... [2005] U.K.P.C. 38 White v. Cammock and Attorney General Claim No. HCV 787/2006 Welch v. The Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda [2013] U.K.P.C. 21 Attorney General's Reference (No. 2 of 2001) 2 A.C. 72 Oatile v. The Attorney General 2010 (1) B.L.R. 404 (HC) . Legislation: Section 14(3......
-
Damages for injuries arising from unlawful shooting by police and other security agents: South Africa, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia and Swaziland/Eswatini (2)
...Con stabulary [2002] 2 AC 122 (HL) at para [63]. The Priv y Council has held i n Welch v Attorney G eneral (Antigua and Barbuda) [2013] UKPC 21 (9 July 2013) at paras [22]–[23], that whatever may be the outcome of the trial j udge’s assessment of compens ation, it would be duplicative to aw......