Public Law Syllabus: Locus Standi

Below is an excerpt from an article by Melanie Plimmer. The Title of the article is "Standing in someone else's shoes".

The article appeared in the New Law Journal 10 July 1998 - Vol 148 No 6848 p 1026.

The entire article , which is worth reading, may be found here (PDF) or here (HTML) so please read it.

The excerpt is from the section of the article that would be useful in answering the following CXC CAPE question,

"Effie is concerned when the government amends the Terrorism Act

empowering the police to conduct DNA tests on all persons

detained on suspicion of offences under the Act, without an order of the court.

Explain whether Effie could successfully bring an action against the government?"

*

STANDING

Under the Commonwealth Constitutions any person who has alleged that a fundamental human rights provision has been, is being or is likely to be contravened, in relation to him may apply to the High Court for relief. (Section 14(1) of the Trinidad and Tobago Constitution.)

Caribbean courts have in general remained committed to the doctrine which states that an individual has no right to bring an action in court to litigate a matter of general public interest.

S/he must have sufficient relevant interest in order to be given locus standi.

In R v Sir Loius Mbanefo, ex parte Pierre (1966) 10 WIR 368 a Commission of Enquiry was appointed to enquire into subversive activity in Trinidad and Tobago. The applicant was called to give evidence, but refused and eventually sought an order of certiorari to quash the Commission's report. The application was dismissed for want of standing on the basis that,

". . . the applicant has to show that he is a person aggrieved. In otherwords, he has to show he is one who is wrongly deprived of or refused something to which he is legally entitled or upon whom a legal burden is cast, and not merely one who is dissatisfied with an act or decision".

See also the St. Lucia case of Gordon v Minister of Finance (1968) 12 WIR 416. An MP claimed that the Appropriation Act was in violation of the Constitution. He argued that membership of Parliament and his status as a taxpayer was enough to give him relevant interest, which was rejected by the court.

There have been more liberal trends in the case-law since the above decision such as:

-the wife of a deceased person who had been killed unlawfully by the police could complain of a breach of her fundamental rights as a result of an unlawful act or omission in respect of another; (Patrice Kareem v AG CA/Civ No 71 of 1987 (unreported).);

- a merchant company acting as shipping agents was held to be a person who could obtain redress under s 14 of the Constitution for a violation by the Chief Immigration Officer to grant equality before the law (Smith v LJ Williams (1981) 32 WIR 395.);and

- a citizen and tax-payer of St Lucia was held to have locus standi in seeking to prevent a Commission of Enquiry looking into alleged misappropriation of UN funds. (Lionel v AG of St Lucia (357 of 1995) (unreported).

*

*

Other articles and cases of note are :

1. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. MARTINUS FRANCOIS - St. Lucia : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2003

2. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
by The Hon. Mr. Justice Benjamin J Odoki - Chief Justice of Uganda (at page 20 of the Journal)