Yiacoub and another v The Queen
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Hughes |
| Judgment Date | 10 July 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] UKPC 22 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No 0005 of 2013 |
| Date | 10 July 2014 |
| Court | Privy Council |
[2014] UKPC 22
Privy Council
Lord Neuberger
Lord Mance
Lord Clarke
Lord Hughes
Lord Toulson
Appeal No 0005 of 2013
Christos Pourgourides
James Guthrie QC Michael Hadjiconstantas (Instructed by MA Law (Solicitors) LLP)
Heard on 9 June 2014
The question in this case is whether the separate court system established by the Courts (Constitution and Jurisdiction) Ordinance 2007 for the Sovereign Base Areas of Cyprus complies in one particular with the common law requirement that justice must not only be done, but clearly be seen to be done.
Under the Ordinance, there are, for both civil and criminal cases, the Resident Judge's Court ("RJC") and the Senior Judges' Court ("SJC"). The present case concerns a criminal prosecution. Criminal trial in the Sovereign Base Areas is by judge or judges without jury. For criminal cases, the court of trial is, by section 29, normally the RJC, with appeal to the SJC.
Judges of the RCJ must be either judicial office holders in Her Majesty's Dominions or professional lawyers with a minimum of ten years since qualification. The court normally sits constituted by a single judge but there are sensible flexible powers for it to be composed where the occasion warrants it by three judges — see section 16. The usual (and current) practice is for there to be a full time Resident Judge.
There are normally only nine judges of the SJC. By section 11(1), all must be full time professional judges from England and Wales, sitting part time and more or less ad hoc in Cyprus. Generally they are Circuit Judges. As such they enjoy security of tenure in England and Wales. They are appointed as Senior Judges by the Administrator of the Sovereign Base Areas on the instructions of the Secretary of State. This follows the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor on the advice of a panel convened under the Chairmanship of the Senior Presiding Judge of England and Wales (a Lord Justice of Appeal). Apart from subsistence allowances, they are unpaid for the additional work in Cyprus.
One of the nine Senior Judges acts as Presiding Judge of the SJC. The current holder of that office is an English Circuit Judge of long experience. He is an ordinary member of the court, but in addition has a co-ordinating administrative function of the kind which the senior member of many courts has. Section 4(3) of the Ordinance provides:
"(3) The disposition and distribution of the duties of the Senior Judges' Court is regulated by the Presiding Judge."
This means that one of the functions the Presiding Judge exercises is to supervise listing in the court and thus to oversee the constitution of the panels to hear cases There is in section 5(3) of the Ordinance an identically worded provision for the Resident Judge to perform the same function for the RJC. Such arrangements are extremely common. In England and Wales such leadership functions are exercised by many judges, not only the Lord Chief Justice and Heads of Division, but also, for example, Resident Judges in a Crown Court, or the Designated Civil or Designated Family Judges in particular geographical areas.
The complication which has arisen in the present case derives from flexible arrangements under which judges of the SCJ may from time to time sit when convenient as judges of the RCJ. The Ordinance provides specifically in section 6(3) that this may be done and specifies that in such circumstances the Senior Judge's powers are limited to those of a judge of the RJC. One of the functions of the Presiding Judge of the SCJ is to determine whether a particular case or category of cases justifies a court of three rather than of one in the RCJ: see section 16(3). It is no doubt sensible for Senior Judges sometimes to form the court of trial in a criminal case, and this happened in the present proceedings. The trial court consisted of three Senior Court Judges, including the Presiding Judge, all sitting in their capacity as judges of the RCJ. One defendant pleaded guilty. Three others contested the case; they were acquitted of one charge but convicted of the others.
Two of the defendants appealed against their convictions. They sought to challenge the factual findings of the RCJ on the evidence. Appeal is as of right, so it was necessary for a division of the SCJ to be constituted to hear the appeal. Because the trial court had consisted of three judges, a new panel of three Senior Court Judges was convened to hear the appeal. In the ordinary way, the arrangements for this were overseen by the Presiding Judge under section 4(3), who thus nominated another Senior Judge, who had not been a member of the trial court, to chair the panel of three for this purpose. That other judge then made arrangements for two other members of the court to sit with him. The appeal was dismissed by the SCJ.
The problem with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Almazeedi v Penner and another
...the tribunal was biased”: Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67; [2002] 2 AC 357, para 103, quoted and applied recently in Yiacoub v The Queen [2014] UKPC 22; [2014] 1 WLR 2996, para 11. There is no suggestion of actual bias; but, as the Court of Appeal pointed out in the present case (para 61),......
-
Hussain Jamal Rasool v General Pharmaceutical Council
...statement in Millar v Dickson [2002] 1 WLR 1615 at paragraph 63, as endorsed by the Privy Council in Yiacoub and another v The Queen [2014] 1 WLR 2996). 26 Both parties have referred me to the decision in Castillo Algar v Spain [1988] 30 EHRR 827 (at paragraphs 45 and 46). The proposition w......
-
R Inspector Ken Mackaill and Others v Independent Police Complaints Commission Chief Constable of West Midlands Police and Others (Interested Parties)
...cases of a quite strict application of the principle: see, for example, the decision in Lawal itself (cited above) and Yacoub v The Queen [2014] UKPC 22. 102 The position of two of the Interested Parties was neutral on the issue of apparent bias. Mr Beggs, for West Mercia Police, supported ......
-
W Ltd v M Sdn Bhd
...was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased": Porter v Magill [2002] AC 357 at [103] per Lord Hope. 18 In Yiacoub v The Queen [2014] UKPC 22; [2014] 1 WLR 2996 at [12] Lord Hughes (with Lords Neuberger, Mance, Clarke and Toulson) added: "That and similar formulations use the word "b......
-
"Weaknesses" In The IBA Guidelines On Conflicts Of Interest
...having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased”.7 In Yiacoub v The Queen [2014] UKPC 22, “bias” was further explained to “mean an absence of demonstrated independence or Knowles J concluded that a fair minded and informed observer ......
-
Keep Calm And Carry On Arbitrating: The Latest On Apparent Bias In Arbitration
...the tribunal was biased ..." 'Bias' in English law means the "absence of demonstrated independence or impartiality" (Yiacoub v The Queen [2014] UKPC 22), which is perhaps a less pejorative meaning than the word may carry in ordinary usage. Beyond that, the authorities contain a little furth......