Subject to the provisions of sections 49 and 50 of this Constitution, if any other law is inconsistent with this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail and the other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.
There are several cases that have enforced the Supremacy of the Constitution in the Commonwealth Caribbean.
1. Hinds v R (1977) AC 195 is considered to be the authority on the doctrine of Separation of the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Powers. It is a Jamaican case which concerned the constitutionality of the Gun Court Act of 1974. You might not find the full text of the judgment online, but it is discussed in several other cases which may be found online. One such case is Trinidad and Tobago Civil Rights Association v Patrick Manning. A discussion of Hinds v R may be found at page 28 of the judgment.
2. D.P.P. v Kurt Mollison (No. 2), which is reported at P.C.#88 of 2001, is another example of the way in which the Courts have enforced the principle of Constitutional Supremacy. This case also deals with the doctrine of Separation of Powers.
3. Charles Matthew v The State is a 2004 Trinidadian case which required the Privy Council to determine the constitutionality of the death penalty.
4. Three Jamaican cases which upheld the supremacy of the constitution are :
- The Pratt and Morgan case : Earl Pratt & Ivan Morgan v The A.G. & Anor.
- The Neville Lewis case : Neville Lewis et al v A.G. & Anor.
- Lambert Watson v The Queen : The issue to be decided in this case was whether the mandatory death sentence imposed on capital murder under the Offences against the Person Act cases was unconstitutional.
5. In February 2005, the Jamaican Government's bid to make the Caribbean Court of Justice the final Appeal Court of the island was disappointed by the Privy Council's Ruling in the case of Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights Ltd & Others v Attorney General & Another .
The issue which came up before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was stated as follows:
On 30 September 2004 the Governor-General of Jamaica, acting under section 60 of the Constitution, gave his assent to three bills, the broad effect of which was to abolish the right of appeal to Her Majesty in Council and to substitute a right of appeal to a new regional court of final appeal, the Caribbean Court of Justice (“the CCJ”). The key question in this appeal is whether the procedure adopted in enacting that legislation complied with the requirements laid down in the Constitution.
The judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council declared the Caribbean Court of Justice Act 2004 along with the Caribbean Court of Justice (Constitutional Amendment) Act 2004 and the Judicature (Appellate Jurisdiction) Act 2004 unconstitutional and void.
6. Like Hinds v R the full text of the judgment of Collymore v Attorney General for Trinidad and Tobago might not be available online. However, you can find the case discussed in other cases. One such case is the 2003 Trinidad & Tobago case Alleyne & Others v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago. The reference to Collymore is found at page 55 of the judgment.
**
**
UPDATED : MAY 11, 2007:
-
** In January 2007 legal history was created in The Cayman Islands when that country's Court of Appeal ruled that no adult or juvenile can be sentenced to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure or at the Governor's pleasure. Read more here.
-
**An excellent article written by Ms Dawn Palackdharry Singh discussing the hierarchy of the Laws in Trinidad and Tobago, including a brief discussion on the supremacy of the Constitution, may be found here.
No comments:
Post a Comment