Millicent Forbes v Attorney General of Jamaica
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Hoffmann |
| Judgment Date | 19 March 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] UKPC 13 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No 81 of 2007 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Date | 19 March 2009 |
[2009] UKPC 13
Privy Council
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
Lord Hoffmann
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Lord Carswell
Lord Mance
[Delivered by Lord Hoffmann]
On 14 April 2000 the appellant's daughter Janice, aged 12, was shot dead in a street in Kingston. Since then, the appellant has been engaged in trying to have the child's killer brought to justice. The information which she received, in particular from another daughter who was present at the scene, was that Janice had been shot by one of a group of policeman who then refused assistance while she lay dying on the pavement. The appellant says that in the course of her attempts to discover what happened she was harassed by the police and offered money if she would drop the matter. Eventually a policeman named Rohan Allen was charged with murder. After a preliminary inquiry which lasted sixteen months he was committed for trial. After some adjournments and a change of venue, this took place in the Portland Circuit Court, where on 15 March 2004 Allen pleaded not guilty and was put in the charge of the jury.
It appears that the main evidence to identify Allen as the person who fired the fatal shot was the ballistic examination of a fragment of a bullet taken from Janice's body. It was said to show that the bullet had been fired from a particular police gun. The prosecution proposed to prove that the gun in question had been used by Allen in two ways: first, by production of the firearm register, which would have shown which gun had been issued to him, and secondly by production of a statement which Allen had made in the course of the investigation. However, after the plea had been taken and the jury empanelled, Crown counsel told the judge that the relevant parts of the firearms register had been destroyed in a fire and that the Detective Sergeant to whom the statement had been made was overseas and that the inquiries which had been made suggested there was no likelihood that he would return. In the circumstances, he had decided that he could offer no evidence against the defendant. The judge thereupon directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty and they did so.
The appellant claims that the information put before the court about the availability of the Detective Sergeant's evidence was false and was, together with the disappearance of the firearms register, part of a fraudulent conspiracy by members of the police to ensure that Allen was acquitted. She says that in the circumstances the proceedings were a sham and has applied for leave to bring proceedings against the Attorney General for certiorari to quash the acquittal and a declaration that the trial was a nullity.
Wolfe CJ refused leave on 1 October 2004 on the ground that the Circuit Court was a superior court of record and therefore not amenable to judicial review. A renewed application for leave was refused by the Full Court (G Smith and Dukharan JJ, Jones J dissenting) on the same ground on 24 February 2005. The Court of Appeal (Harrison P, Cooke JA and Harris JA) dismissed an appeal from the Full Court on 20 December 2006. The appellant appeals to Her Majesty's Privy Council.
Their Lordships are fully conscious of the tragic circumstances of this case and the pain and indignation which the appellant feels about the way the inquiry and the prosecution were handled by the police. But they have no doubt that the courts below were right. Judicial review is not an available remedy in this case and the grounds upon which the Chief Justice refused leave are unassailable. Judicial review is the procedure by which the Supreme Court ensures that inferior courts and administrators act lawfully and within their powers. It is not a mechanism by which one judge of the Supreme Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R R Cart (First Claimant) U (Second Claimant) XC (Third Claimant) The Upper Tribunal (First Defendant) Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Second Defendant) The Secretary of State for Justice (First Interested Party) The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Second Interested Party) Child Maintenance & Enforcement Commission (Third Interested Party) Mrs Wendy Cart (Fourth Interested Party) The Public Law Project (Intervener)
...Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 49; [2004] QB 1044; [2004] 2 WLR 1351, CAForbes v Attorney General of Jamacia [2009] UKPC 13, PCGebremedhin v France (2007) 50 EHRR 29Head v Social Security Comr [2009] EWHC 950 (Admin); [2009] Pens LR 207Huang v Secretary of State ......
-
Florencio Marin Jose Coye Appellants v Attorney General of Belize Respondent
...240 DLR (4th) 1. 129 [1978] AC 435 at p. 477 E-F. 130 (1820), at p. 245. 131 (3 rd edition, 2000) at p. 49. 132 [2007] UKPC 4 . 133 [2009] UKPC 13 134 (1965), at pages 24–25. 135 [1957] AC 555. 136 [1961] 1 WLR 661 (House of Lords). 137 HCVAP 2006/020A at paragraph 35. 138 Section 4 (1). ......
-
Gerville Williams and Others v Commissioner of Independent Commission of Investigations and Others
...Force. Another case from the old regime will be mentioned here. It is the case of Millicent Forbes v The Attorney General of Jamaica (2009) 75 WIR 406 (the Janice Allen case). I will set out, verbatim, the first three paragraphs of the advice of Lord Hoffman to Her Majesty in Council. The ......
-
Marin and Coye v Attorney General
... ... is, in general terms, beyond the scope of judicial review: Leonie Marshall v DPP 132 ; Millicent Forbes v Attorney-General 133 ... 140 This means that the Attorney ... ...