Sharma v Registrar to the Integrity Commission and another
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Hope of Craighead |
| Judgment Date | 20 June 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] UKPC 42 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Appeal No 72 of 2006 |
| Date | 20 June 2007 |
[2007] UKPC 42
Privy Council
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Lord Carswell
and another
[Delivered by Lord Hope of Craighead]
This is an appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago (Warner, John and Mendonca JJA) of 2 February 2006 allowing an appeal against a judgment of Narine J of 20 April 2005 by which he granted various reliefs in judicial proceedings brought by the appellant against the Integrity Commission of Trinidad and Tobago and the Commission's Registrar.
Section 138 of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago provides that there shall be an Integrity Commission ("the Commission") charged with the duty, among others, of receiving declarations in writing of the assets, liabilities and income of persons in public life and the supervision and monitoring of standards of ethical conduct. Section 139 provides that Parliament may make provision for the procedure in accordance with which the Commission is to perform its functions, for conferring such powers on the Commission and imposing such duties on persons concerned as are necessary to enable it to carry out effectively the purposes of section 138 and for the preparation by it of a Register of Interests for public inspection.
In pursuance of the powers vested in Parliament by section 139 of the Constitution a series of statutes was enacted requiring persons in public life to submit information to the Commission about their income, assets and liabilities and certain other interests. The immediate predecessor to the current statute was the Integrity in Public Life Act 1987 ("the 1987 Act). On 6 November 2000 the 1987 Act was repealed and replaced by the Integrity in Public Life Act 2000. The Integrity in Public Life (Amendment) Act 2000, which was brought into operation on the same day, amended the 2000 Act in respects which are not material to these proceedings.
The 2000 Act
The establishment, powers and functions of the Commission are set out in Part II of the 2000 Act. Among its provisions is section 7, which states that there shall be a Registrar to the Commission. Part III deals with financial disclosure. Part IV sets out a code of conduct. Part V deals with the Commission's powers of investigation. Persons in public life for the purposes of the Act are listed in the Schedule. The provisions which lie at the heart of this appeal are sections 11 and 14 which are to be found in Part III, and section 41 which is in Part V.
Section 11, so far as relevant, provides:
"(1) A person shall, within three months of becoming a person in public life, complete and file with the Commission in the prescribed form, a declaration of his income, assets and liabilities in respect of the previous year and, thereafter, on 31 st May in each succeeding year that he is a person in public life, he shall file further declarations of his income, assets and liabilities.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (1), the Commission may, in any particular case, for good cause, extend the time for the furnishing of a declaration for a period not exceeding six months.
(3) The declaration shall be in such form as the Commission may from time to time prescribe and may be accompanied, if the declarant so wishes, by a statement relating to his net worth as indicated by details of his income, assets and liabilities.
(6) Where a person who is required to do so fails to file a declaration in accordance with this section or without reasonable cause, … fails to file the statement of registrable interests under section 14, the Commission shall publish such fact in the Gazette and a least one daily newspaper in circulation in Trinidad and Tobago.
(7) The Commission may, at any time after the publication referred to in subsection (6), make an ex parte application to the High Court for an order directing such person to comply with the Act and the Court may, in addition to making such an order, impose such conditions as it thinks fit.
(8) A person who fails to comply with the directions of the Court commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars."
Section 13(1) provides that the Commission shall examine every declaration that is filed and ensure that it complies with the requirements of the Act. Section 13(3) provides that where, upon such examination, the Commission is satisfied that a declaration has been fully made, it shall forward to the person in public life a certificate of compliance.
Section 14(1), so far as relevant, provides:
"(1) A person in public life shall file with his declaration under section 11, an additional statement of registrable interests in the prescribed form, which shall contain the information required by subsection (3).
(2) The Registrar of the Commission shall compile and cause to be entered in a Register of Interests, all information furnished pursuant to subsection (1) and shall at the request of any member of the public, permit the inspection of such Register.
…"
Section 21 provides that a person in public life who fails without reasonable cause to furnish to the Commission a declaration which he is required to furnish in accordance with the provisions of the Act is guilty of an offence.
Section 32 provides that a person who wishes to allege or make a complaint that a person in public life or any person exercising a public function is in contravention of the Act, has a conflict of interest in relation to the Register of Interests or is committing or has committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act may do so in writing to the Commission. Section 33 provides that the Commission may on its own initiative, and shall upon the complaint of any member of the public, consider and enquire into any alleged breaches of the Act or any allegations of corrupt or dishonest conduct.
Section 41 provides:
"(1) The Commission may make Regulations prescribing –
(a) the manner in which enquiries may be carried out and any matters incidental to or consequential upon such enquiries;
(b) the standard or criteria for the initiation of such inquiries;
(c) the manner in which information received from the public would be assessed and verified;
(d) the form of declaration to be submitted and any additional forms which have been prescribed or which may become necessary;
(e) the period within which any information or document required by the Commission should be furnished or produced;
(f) the fees that are payable by members of the public in respect of a certified copy of a public declaration statement and the manner in which such statements may be made available;
(g) any matter or thing in respect of which it may be necessary to make Regulations for carrying this Act into effect.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) shall be subject to the affirmative resolution of Parliament."
The issues
The appellant sought judicial review of, first, a decision of the Commission announced on 12 May 2004 not to require persons in public life to file under sections 11 and 14 of the Act declarations of their income, assets and liabilities and statements of registrable interests in respect of the calendar year 2002; second, the Commission's delay in making regulations under section 41(1)(a) to (c) prescribing the manner and circumstances in which it is to carry out enquiries under the Act; and, third, an alleged failure by the Registrar to compile, and to allow him to inspect, the Register of Interests required to be kept under section 14.
The judge held that the exemption of persons in public life from filing the declarations and statements referred to in sections 11 and 14 of the Act for the year 2002 was ultra vires and made a declaration that such persons were required to file these documents for that year. This issue is referred to below as "the filing issue". He also made a declaration that the Commission had delayed unreasonably in making the regulations and ordered it to take the necessary steps within three months. This issue is referred to as "the regulations issue". The appellant withdrew his complaint about the Registrar's failure to compile and allow him access to the Register of Interests. The judge ordered that the Registrar should bear his own costs in regard to that issue. This issue is referred to as "the costs issue". The Court of Appeal reversed the judge's decision on all three issues. The appellant invited the Board to restore the judge's decision on each of them.
The facts
Upon the coming into force of the 2000 Act the Commission decided to make the regulations which it considered necessary to give effect to the Act and engaged consultants to help in the drafting of them. On 7 August 2001 it forwarded the regulations to the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to be laid before Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure. The regulations were laid before the House of Representatives on 7 September 2001 and before the Senate on 9 September 2001. But Parliament was dissolved on 13 October 2001 before the affirmative resolution procedure could be completed. A general election was held on 10 December 2001. It yielded an exact equality of seats in the House to the People's National Movement ("the PNM") and the United National Congress ("the UNC"). Each party won eighteen seats, so neither party had a majority in the House. Attempts to elect a Speaker were deadlocked and Parliament failed to function. On 30 August 2002 it was dissolved and on 7 October 2002 a further general election was held. On this occasion the PNM won a clear majority of seats.
On 15 November 2002, following this further election, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R.m. For Judicial Review V. The Scottish Ministers
...Times L.R. 713; Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department 1993 S.C. (H.L.) 1; Sharma v Registrar to the Integrity Commission [2007] 1 W.L.R. 2849.) Counsel submitted that the Lord Ordinary had erred in his construction of section 268 when he concluded that there was no obligation i......
-
RM v Scottish Ministers
...of a statutory scheme, include Greater London Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1984] JPL 424 and Sharma v Registrar to the Integrity Commission [2007] 1 WLR 2849, para 26, per Lord Hope of Craighead. In the present case, the exercise of the power to make regulations by 1 Ma......
-
Bridglal v Attorney General
...use prescribed forms was fatal to the constitutionality of the Magistrate's orders, the claimant cites the case of Sharma v. Registrar of the Integrity Commission and Another [2007] UKPC 42. This case involved judicial review of the Integrity Commission's delay in prescribing regulations fo......
-
Doolam Rekha v Attorney General
...to do so — Julius v Lord Bishop of Oxford (1880) 5 App Cas 214 and Singh v Secretary of State [1992] 1 WLR 1052. 36 In Sharma v Registrar of the Integrity Commission [2007] 1 WLR 2849 at paras 25 and 26 Lord Hope envisaged circumstances in which a body may be under a duty to make regulation......
-
Table of cases
.................................................................................571 Sharma v Registrar to the Integrity Commissioner, [2007] 1 WLR 2849, [2007] UKPC 42............................................................................................. 87 Shaun Developments Inc v Sham......
-
Interlocutory Injunctions: General Principles
...273 Hadmor Productions Ltd v Hamilton (1982), [1983] 1 AC 191 (HL) [ Hadmor ]. 274 Sharma v Registrar to the Integrity Commissioner , [2007] 1 WLR 2849 at para 31 (PC). 275 Metropolitan Stores Ltd , above note 91 at 155–56; RB v Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto (1994), [1995] ......
-
Interlocutory Injunctions: General Principles
...Law Society of Upper Canada, Special Lectures 1995 (Scarborough, ON: Carswell, 1995) at 211. 151 (1982), [1983] 1 A.C. 191 (H.L.). 152 [2007] 1 W.L.R. 2849 at para. 31 (P.C.). 153 Manitoba (Attorney General) v. Metropolitan Stores Ltd. , [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110 at 155–56; and R.B. v. Children’s......
-
Table of Cases
...(3d) 302, [2005] O.J. No. 3266 (S.C.J.) .....................................414 Sharma v. Registrar to the Integrity Commissioner, [2007] 1 W.L.R. 2849, [2007] UKPC 42 ........................................................ 64 Shaw Industries Ltd. v. Greenland Enterprises Ltd. (1991), 79 ......