CCJ DEATH PENALTY APPEAL

SENIOR COUNSEL Douglas Mendes argued yesterday that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) should not depart from decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Mendes, who appeared for convicted Barbados killers Jeffrey Joseph and Lennox Ricardo Boyce, said Barbados was bound to follow the Privy Council cases.

“We may feel that this court is not empowered to follow any case with respect to this case. Even though you have the power to depart, you are not bound to do so,” Mendes added.

Justice Rolston Nelson, one of the CCJ judges, said, “We are the highest court, there is no court higher than this.” Mendes replied, “You also have the power to depart from your own decisions... in the future.”

The government of Barbados is appealing the decision of their Court of Appeal which commuted the death sentences of Joseph and Boyce on May 31, 2005.

Joseph and Boyce were sentenced to death on February 2, 2001 for the murder of Marquelle Hippolite in April 1999. The appeal was heard over the last two days before the CCJ at 134 Henry Street, Port-of-Spain, comprising a full seven-member panel — Michael de la Bastide (president), and Justices Rolston Nelson, Duke Pollard, Adrian Saunders, Desiree Bernard, Jacob Wit and David Hayton.

In emphasising his point, Mendes said the Barbados courts were bound to follow Privy Council cases from other jurisdictions. He cited several cases among them the Trinidadian cases of Roodal and Matthew where the Privy Council had to determine the constitutionality of the death penalty.

Two Privy Council cases were highlighted several times during the appeal — Neville Lewis v the AG (Jamaica) and Thomas v Baptiste (TT). Roger Forde QC, who represented the Barbados government, asked the CCJ to depart from these cases.

But Mendes was adamant that the CCJ should follow them. In Lewis, the Law Lords ruled that convicted killers have a right to be heard before the Mercy Committee before they are hanged. In Thomas, the Privy Council said that before killers are executed, their petitions before international human rights bodies should be determined.

Mendes said persons on death row acquired a legitimate expectation to pursue petitions to the human rights bodies in their attempt to convince those bodies that they should not be executed. “This involves life and death,” Mendes told the court.

“The legal system relating to the death penalty would be worsened if you do not follow those cases,” Mendes argued.

Mendes pointed out that complaints are made by condemned prisoners to these international bodies, detailing contravention of their rights during the trial, that their lawyers were incompetent, delays, that prison conditions were bad, or errors made by the judge.

The Trinidadian lawyer said the international bodies would make a recommendation that the sentence of the prisoner be commuted, or that that person receive compensation.

De la Bastide responded, “These are matters which should have been raised in the internal process. If they were raised, why did they get a further opportunity to raise these points again?”

Mendes said there were instances when the courts found no violation, but the bodies did.