Lawyer lashes ‘inconsistent’ Privy Council

A senior attorney yesterday knocked the Privy Council in London, saying that a number of its judgments have not only been inconsistent on the same subject, but have been wreaking havoc on this country’s Constitution.

Making the observation was attorney Avory Sinanan SC, who further recalled that since the Council’s ruling in 1994 in the Jamaican case of Pratt and Morgan, which stipulated a five-year period for all capital appeals to be heard, it has been frolicking with our Constitution. Sinanan wondered aloud whether the Privy Council saw us as a banana republic. Sinanan made the comments while representing the State in a constitutional motion brought by convicted killer Sangit Chaitlal, whose death sentence was commuted to spending the rest of his natural life in prison by an order of President Noor Hassanali, in 1994.

Sinanan also noted that most of these rulings came from majority judgments and advised the Court to also read the views of the dissenting judges in the matters. Chaitlal, through his attorneys Dr Charles Seepersad, Mark Seepersad and Gerald Ramdeen, is asking, among other reliefs, that the commutation order is unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect. They also suggested to Justice David Myers, who is hearing the motion, that Chaitlal should be freed. Sinanan, farcically stated: “Not only should we free them, but why not put them up in a room in the Hilton.”

When hearing resumed in the Port-of-Spain Fifth Civil Court yesterday, Sinanan explained that a search at President’s House for the instrument granting the commutation could not be found. He also indicated that the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of National Security, which is responsible for such matters, was “off today,” and further checks will have to be made for the records. In 1994, 43 convicted killers had their death sentences commuted to life imprisonment because of the ruling in Pratt and Morgan. Chaitlal’s attorneys argued that the President erred when he selected the type of punishment Chaitlal must receive, namely the “rest of his natural life in prison.” Such a choice must be made from the list of punishments by the courts and not the President, under the separation of power rule.

Further, they argued, that the recent ruling by the Privy Council in the Roodal matter, in which the Law Lords in a majority decision stated that the mandatory death sentence is illegal, has nullified the death sentence passed on Chaitlal by then trial judge Justice Mustapha Ibrahim. Sinanan submitted that in this matter, the action of the President was a discretionary one and should not be subjected to judicial scrutinies. He said the President was granting mercy, something that falls solely within his discretion. He said Chaitlal should not now be complaining since he got the best deal going at the time and had taken the benefits of the commutation. “What further benevolence of the President could he get?” asked Sinanan. Chaitlal, he said, had no right in this commutation process since it was a discretion exercised by the President. Therefore, he  was not entitled to make representation to the President on the issue. Hearing of the motion will continue on January 6, 7 and 8, 2004, in San Fernando.