Walker and Another v The Queen ; Douglas v The Queen ; Glanville v The Queen
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 02 November 1993 |
| Date | 02 November 1993 |
| Court | Privy Council |
Privy Council - Jurisdiction - Appeal against sentence - Mandatory death sentence - Defendants contending execution unconstitutional by reason of delay - No application to Jamaican court for constitutional redress - Whether Privy Council having jurisdiction to entertain appeals -
Between 1982 and 1984 the defendants were each convicted of murder and sentenced to death, which was the mandatory sentence. The applications for leave to appeal against conviction by the defendants in the first and second appeals were dismissed by the Court of Appeal of Jamaica in 1984 and 1987, and in 1985 the other defendant's appeal against conviction was dismissed. In 1992 and 1993 they were each granted special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The ground of appeal was that execution after such a long delay would contravene the constitutional rights of the defendants. The Crown objected that the appeals were not within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee under sections 3 and 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833F1 and section 1 of the Judicial Committee Act 1844.F2
On the appeals: —
Held, dismissing the appeals for want of jurisdiction, that the powers of the Judicial Committee were governed by the Acts of 1833 and 1844, which had superseded the royal prerogative in relation thereto, and in the absence of a reference under section 4 of the Act of 1833 the Judicial Committee could only act as an appellate court; that the proceedings were not appeals against judgments of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica and the lawfulness of the original convictions and sentences was not disputed; and that, accordingly, since the Judicial Committee could not decide as a court of first instance whether execution of the defendants would now infringe their constitutional rights, there was no jurisdiction to deal directly with their cases by way of appeal against sentence (post, pp. 1019H, 1020A, C, E–F).
Per curiam. Unless the sentences of the defendants are commuted on the advice of the Jamaican Privy Council, they have every prosect of making a successful constitutional application to the Supreme Court to have their sentences commuted to life imprisonment (post, p. 1021A).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of their Lordships:
Attorney-General v. De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd. [
Ong Ah Chuan v. Public Prosecutor [
Pratt v. Attorney-General for Jamaica [
Surat (Nawab of), In re (
Thomas v. The Queen [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Abbott v. Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago [
Attorney-General for Ontario v. Attorney-General for Canada [
Australian Consolidated Press Ltd. v. Uren [
Bell v. Director of Public Prosecutions [
Buxoo v. The Queen [
Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe v. Attorney-General (unreported), 24 June 1993, Judgment No. S.C. 73/93,
Chokolingo v. Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago [
de Freitas v. Benny [
Hardtmann v. The Queen [
Juirisingh v. The State (unreported), 29 April 1993, Civil...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramdeen v The State
...submitted that the Board should refuse leave because it has no jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal, applying the decision in Walker v The Queen [1994] 2 AC 34 Mr Fitzgerald submitted that Walker is distinguishable and that to allow an appeal against sentence would be consistent with m......
-
De Morgan v Director-General of Social Welfare
... [PRIVY COUNCIL] ... DE MORGAN and Another Petitioners and DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF SOCIAL ... and dictum of Lord Griffiths in Walker v. The Queen [ 1994 ] 2 A.C. 36 , 44, P.C ... ...
-
Alcedo Tyson v The Queen
...Mohama Kunjo s/o Ramalan v Public Prosecutor [1979] A.C. 135 applied. Bowe (Junior) & Anor v R 2006 UKPC 10 applied; Walker v The Queen [1994] 2 A.C. 36 distinguished; Hunte and Khan [2015] UKPC 33 distinguished. 2. The principle of equality of arms centers on achieving basic and reasonab......
-
Hunte and Khan v The State (Trinidad and Tobago)
...the Court of Appeal would have had no jurisdiction to make. 57 This analysis is supported by the decision and reasoning of the Board in Walker v The Queen [1994] 2 AC 36, which was decided by the same constitution and on the same day as Pratt's case. The appeal in Pratt was from a decision......
-
The privy council: the mandatory death penalty is inhuman and degrading treatment
...of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which a person has been convicted. 15 Ibid , para 9. 16 Walker v The Queen [1994] 2 AC 36. 17 The Judgment para 12. Likewise the Board ascertained that all three Constitutions provided for the institution of the Advisory Committ......