Humphreys v Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Hoffmann |
| Judgment Date | 11 December 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] UKPC 61 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Appeal No 8 of 2008 |
| Date | 11 December 2008 |
[2008] UKPC 61
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Hoffmann
Lord Hope of Craighead
Baroness Hale of Richmond
Lord Carswell
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
Privy Council
[Delivered by Lord Hoffmann]
On 19 June 2003 the Commissioner of the Police laid a number of criminal complaints against the appellant Mr Humphreys, alleging that he had conspired on various occasions during 1999 to defraud the Medical Benefits Board of Control. The offences were triable on indictment and as the law then stood, the next step would have been to bring Mr Humphreys before a magistrate for a preliminary inquiry pursuant to the Magistrate's Code of Procedure Act Cap 255. At the preliminary inquiry, the accused was entitled to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, call witnesses and give evidence in his defence. The accused could then submit that he had no case to answer. The magistrate would decide whether there was evidence upon which a jury could reasonably convict; if so, he would commit the accused for trial and, if not, he would order his discharge.
Before any such proceedings had begun, Parliament passed the Magistrate's Code of Procedure Amendment Act, No 13 of 2004, which abolished the preliminary inquiry. It substituted committal proceedings in which the magistrate makes the decision to commit the accused for trial or discharge him entirely on the basis of written witness statements and exhibits submitted by the prosecution and, if he chooses to submit them, by the accused. There is no right to cross-examine or call or give oral evidence. By section 1(2), the 2004 Act applies to "legal proceedings pending on the commencement of this Act" as well as those instituted thereafter. There is no dispute that the Act applies to the prosecution against Mr Humphreys.
He has brought judicial review proceedings claiming that the abolition of the preliminary inquiry has infringed his constitutional rights; first, by retrospectively depriving him of the procedural protection to which he was entitled at the time he was charged and secondly by depriving him of the right to a fair trial. These submissions were accepted by Thomas J in the High Court but rejected by the Court of Appeal (Alleyne CJ (Ag), Barrow and Rawlins JJA). Mr Humphreys appeals to Her Majesty in Council.
The Board will first deal with the complaint about retrospectivity. The law deals with retrospectivity at two levels. First, a court will generally not construe legislation as intended to operate retrospectively if doing so would have an unfair result. The leading authority on this doctrine is the speech of Lord Mustill in L'Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd [1994] 1 AC 486 at pp. 523-529. From the authorities examined by Lord Mustill, it would appear that the presumption will rarely, if ever, apply to changes in court procedure. Prospective litigants (or defendants in criminal proceedings) do not have a vested right to any particular procedure and there will generally be nothing unfair in applying whatever procedure is in force when the case comes to court. It is however unnecessary to examine the scope of the doctrine because on any view it is a principle of construction which must yield to the express language of the statute. In this case the language of the statute could hardly be clearer. The new regime is to apply to "legal proceedings pending on the commencement of this Act". Any presumption against retrospectivity is therefore rebutted.
The second level is that of constitutional prohibition. Section 15(4) of the Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda altogether...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kai Yip Cheung v R
...Procedure Act 2011, ss 398. Proceedings begun before commencement date were completed under the former law: s 397. 32 Humphreys v Attorney-General of Antigua and Barbuda [2008] UKPC 61, [2009] 4 LRC 405 at [4]. The Act provides in ss 397 and 398 that proceedings commenced under former law......
-
Seymour and Johnson v The Attorney General
...Ltd v. Sirs and Others [1980] 1 W.L.R 142 considered Grant v. The Queen [2006] U.K.P.C. 2 distinguished Humphreys v. The Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda [2008] U.K.P.C. 61 considered Mills v. Queen [1995] JCJ No. 8 mentioned Moncur and another v. Woods [1989–90] 1 LRB 292 consi......
-
R v Hallett Hc Rot
...At [15], the Court stated: Relevant to all of this is the following passage from the opinion of the Privy Council in Humphreys v The Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda [2008] UKPC 61: [4] … [A] court will generally not construe legislation as intended to operate retrospectively if doi......
-
Attorney General of Saint Lucia Appellant v Kaim Sexius Respondent [ECSC]
...18 [1993] AC 1. 19 At p. 40. 20 [2009] EWCA Crim 43. 21 (4 th edn. reissue, 1996) vol. 8(2), para. 2. 22 See also Hilroy Humphreys v The Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda [2008] UKPC 61. 23 Sections 41(2) and (11) of the Constitution clearly outline the manner in which such rights can......