Mohammed v The State
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Judgment Date | 1999 |
| Year | 1999 |
| Date | 1999 |
Trinidad and Tobago - Crime - Evidence - Confession - Police failing to inform defendant of constitutional right to communicate with lawyer - Confession obtained in breach of constitutional right - Judge wrongly permitting prosecuting counsel to make closing speech to jury - Whether confession obtained in breach of defendant's constitutional rights admissible - Exercise of discretion - Whether proviso to be applied -
The defendant was charged with murder. At his trial his first statement was admitted in evidence without objection, but the defence objected to the admission of a second statement on the ground that it had been obtained in breach of his right under section 5(2)(c)(ii) and (h) of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and TobagoF1 to be informed of the right to communicate with a legal adviser. The prosecution conceded that such a breach of the defendant's constitutional rights had occurred but it was not suggested by the defence that it had been deliberate. The trial judge conducted a voire dire, and having weighed the competing interests he admitted the statement in the exercise of his discretion. Only the defendant gave evidence in support of the defence case of alibi and defence counsel elected not to make a closing speech to the jury. Nevertheless the judge permitted prosecuting counsel to make a closing speech in which he urged the jury to convict the defendant in emotional language. In his summing up the judge did not tell the jury to disregard the speech. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to death. The Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago dismissed his appeal against conviction holding that although the second statement had been obtained in breach of the defendant's constitutional rights the judge had a discretion to admit it and had not erred in doing so, and that, although the judge had wrongly permitted prosecuting counsel to make a closing speech and the language used therein had been inappropriate, with or without the speech the jury would inevitably have convicted the defendant and so the proviso to section 44(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature ActF2 would be applied.
On the defendant's appeal to the Judicial Committee: —
Held, (1) that a voluntary confession obtained in breach of a suspect's rights under the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago was not automatically inadmissible and the trial judge had a discretion to admit it; that the discretion was not to be exercised on the basis that such a confession was prima facie inadmissible, but the contravention of a constitutional right was a cogent factor in favour of exclusion; that the judge had to balance the interest of the community in securing relevant evidence relating to the commission of serious crime against the interest of the person whose constitutional rights had been infringed, taking into account the nature of the particular constitutional right and of the particular breach; that where police officers had deliberately frustrated a suspect's constitutional rights a confession should not generally be admitted; but that, since the judge had been entitled to find that the police had acted in good faith and he had taken into account the relevant considerations before exercising his discretion to admit the defendant's second statement, there were no grounds for interfering with his decision (post, pp. 560D–F, 562D–E).
(2) Allowing the appeal, that since the defence had called no witness other than the defendant and had waived the right to make a closing speech to the jury it had been an irregularity to permit prosecuting counsel to make a closing speech; that since the judge in his summing up had failed to dispel the prejudice which that speech had been calculated to cause in the minds of the jurors, and since there had remained an issue to be resolved by the jury, in all the circumstances it was impossible to be satisfied that the jury would inevitably have convicted the defendant of murder if that speech had not been made; and that, accordingly, the Court of Appeal had erred in applying the proviso to section 44(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act and the defendant's conviction and sentence would be quashed (post, pp. 563F–H, 564F–G, 565C–D).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of their Lordships:
Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Whiteman (
Collins v. The Queen (
Crosdale v. The Queen [
Director of Public Prosecution's Reference (No. 1 of 1980) (
King v. The Queen [
Miranda v. Arizona (
People (The) (Attorney-General) v. O'Brien [
People (The) (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Kenny [
People (The) (Director of Public Prosecutions) v. Lynch [
Reg. v. Goodwin [
Reg. v. H. [
Reg. v. Lucas (Ruth) [
Reg. v. Te Kira [
Reg. v. Turnbull [
Thornhill v. Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago (
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Anderson v. The Queen [
Beckford v. The Queen (
Boodram v. Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago [
Chokolingo v. Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago [
Duke v. The Queen (
Foster v. The Queen (
Gayle v. The Queen (unreported), 12 June 1996; Appeal No. 40 of 1995,
H.M. Advocate v. Turnbull,
Hinds v. The Queen [
Kuruma v. The Queen [
Lawrie v. Muir,
M'Govern v. H.M. Advocate,
Maharaj v. Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago (No. 2) [
Mapp v. Ohio (
Ministry of Transport v. Noort [
Murray v. United Kingdom (
Pollard v. The Queen (
Reg. v. Burge [
Reg. v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Ex parte Begley [
Reg. v. May (
Reg. v. Mondon (
Reg. v. Percerep [
Reg. v. Pink [
Reg. v. Pratt [
Reg. v. Sang [
Reg. v. Swaffield; Pavic v. The Queen (
Reg. v. Wilson [
Reid (Junior) v. The Queen [
Appeal (No. 29 of 1998) with special leave by the defendant, Allie Mohammed, from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago (de la Bastide C.J., Gopeesingh and Permanand JJ.A.) given on 24 July 1996 dismissing his appeal against his conviction of murder on 6 April 1995 before McMillan J. and a jury at the Port of Spain Assizes.
The facts are stated in the judgment of their Lordships.
Andrew Nicol Q.C. and Julian Knowles for the defendant.
Timothy Cassel Q.C. and James Dingemans for the state.
9 December. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by Lord Steyn.
At 7.30 p.m., on Saturday, 6 December 1986, Surindra Maraj was shot in his motor car outside his brother's house in Gray Street, Port of Spain. He died. On 7 December 1986 the police charged the defendant, Imran Ali, Raffick Mohammed and Roger Huggins with the murder. On 12 April 1989 a jury convicted all four men of murder and the judge sentenced them to death. On 1 December 1992 the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial. In 1993 a judge ordered the defendant to be tried separately from his three co-defendants. In June 1994 the three co-defendants were tried. The judge directed them to be acquitted on a submission of no case to answer. On 27 March 1995 the defendant's retrial began. After an eight-day trial the jury convicted the defendant of murder. The judge sentenced him to death. The difference in the fate of the defendant and the three co-defendants is explained by the fact that a confession was admitted in evidence against the defendant but was not admissible against the co-defendants.
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal on several grounds. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The defendant now appeals with special leave from the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Prosecution caseThe prosecution relied on the eye-witness evidence of two police officers. At about 6.30...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
The People (Director of Public Prosecutions) v J.C.
...facie exclusionary rule with a balancing test consistent with that applied by the Privy Council in the Trinidad and Tobago case of Mohammed v. The State [1999] 2 A.C. 111. There the evidence concerned a confession obtained in breach of a defendant's constitutional right to be informed of a......
-
Turkington and Others (Practising as McCartan Turkington Breen) v Times Newspapers Ltd
...the status of a constitutional right with attendant high normative force: see my speech in Reynolds, at 1029H-1030A; compare also Mohammed v. The State [1999] 2 A.C. 111 at 123H. Now, as Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead put it in Reynolds, freedom of expression is buttressed by the Human Rights......
-
Kenneth Anthony Paton Mills v HM Advocate and Another
...of constitutionality is an indication of the higher normative force which is attached to the relevant rights: see Mohammed v The State [1999] 2 AC 111, 123H." (Emphasis added) The reference to the ordinary law was, of course, a reference to the common law rule as stated in Attorney-General......
-
Hinds v Attorney General of Barbados and another
...constitution, enables effect to be given to the guarantee of a fair hearing. 18 Secondly, the Board would reiterate what it said in Mohammed v The State [1999] 2 AC 111 at 124, that "… breach of a defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial must inevitably result in the conviction bei......
-
Subject Index
...257Mitchell v Homfray (1881) 8 QBD 587........................................................ 225Mohammed v The State [1999] 2 WLR552..................................................... 49Moody v Cox [1917] 2 Ch 71 ............ 235Moore v R. Fox & Sons [1956] 1 QB 596...........................
-
Table of Cases
...Contractors Pty Ltd vTownsville-Thuringowa Water SupplyJoint Board [2005] 1 Qd R 373 . . . . . . . . . . 322Mohammed v The State [1999] 2 AC 111 . . . . 206Nanaimo Immigrant Settlement Society vBritish Columbia [2003] BCJNo 2305, SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55Noo......
-
The Exclusion of Improperly Obtained Evidence in Greece: Putting Constitutional Rights First
...of Legitimacy’[1987] Current Legal Problems 55.147 See above, nn. 124 and 125.148 See Ashworth, above n. 146 at 112; Mohammed vThe State [1999] 2 AC 111 at 124,per Lord Steyn.149 Ashworth, ‘Excluding Evidence as Protecting Rights’, above n. 71 at 729.150 Ibid. at 733.151 Ibid. at 729.152 Ch......
-
The admissibility of evidence obtained through human rights violations in Mauritius
...is fatal as it depends on the nature of the constitutional guarantee and the nature of the breach. In Allie Mohammed v The State [1999 2 WLR 552], which is a case that was decided subsequent to Coowar (supra) [Coowar v The State [1997 MR 123]], the Privy Council held that a voluntary confes......