Judicial Supervision of Executive Action in the Commonwealth Caribbean

The following text is taken from the first in a series of lectures in memory of the late Right Honourable Philip Telford Georges. The Right Honourable Mr Justice Michael de la Bastide was invited by the Dean of the Law Faculty, University of the West Indies, to deliver this inaugural lecture in Barbados on 31 March 2006.     

Developments in judicial protection of human rights in the Commonwealth Caribbean

Judicial protection of fundamental rights in the Commonwealth Caribbean is identifiable in recent decisions in the areas of: vindicatory damages; discrimination and mala fides; proportionality; and the independence of Magistrates. Under vindicatory damages, the courts recognise the need for non‐compensatory damages for breaches of fundamental rights. In the area of discrimination judicial decisions indicate a movement towards the removal of the requirement of proof of mala fides for an allegation of unequal treatment by a public authority. Also of note are the introduction of proportionality and protection against contracting out of Constitutional rights, with regard to magistrates and their tenure.     

Law reform: in the Commonwealth,in small states and in the Caribbean

This paper first outlines the constitutional methods of law reform in the Commonwealth as a whole, in small states like those of the Caribbean, and in the Caribbean itself. It considers possible ways in which small states, which tend to have especially limited human and financial resources, might still be able to make greater use of independent law reform. The possibilities include the establishment of more Law Reform Agencies (LRAs), and greater regional co‐operation in law reform or even a Regional Law Reform Agency (RLRA). In this regard, it raises several issues for consideration, in its concluding paragraphs.     

Privacy in Commonwealth Caribbean law: emerging trends in the protection of sexual citizenship

This article will explore the three recent judgments of Jovil Williams and Jason Campbell v AG of St. Christopher and Nevis & Chief of Police;¹1 Suit No: NEVHC 2013/0120, Williams J, (Supreme Court of St. Kitts Nevis, 21st March 2016) (unreported).View all notes Caleb Orozco v AG of Belize²2 Claim No. 668 of 2010 (Supreme Court of Belize, 10th August, 2016) (unreported).View all notes and Therese Ho vs Lendl Simmons³3 High Court Claim CV.2014-01949 (Supreme Court of Trinidad and Tobago, 26th October, 2015) (unreported) [32].View all notes which have broken new ground in constitutional law and the law of torts concerning the protection of (the right to) privacy. It is argued that these judgments hold substantial promise towards the making of a meaningful sexual citizenship in the Caribbean; a citizenship which protects the sexual autonomy of citizens and prevents or redresses the invasion or breach of these rights.     

Redressing supremacy: challenging traditional notions of standing in the Commonwealth Caribbean Bills of Rights

The standing requirements under the Constitutions of the Commonwealth Caribbean require an applicant to allege a contravention of the Bills of Rights ‘in relation to him’, so he must be personally affected. This would exclude lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex organisations from initiating constitutional challenges for which legal challenge by personally affected individuals are unlikely. This article will explore the scope of the supreme law clause in these constitutions, which provide that the constitution is the supreme law and any law inconsistent with it is void to the extent of its inconsistency, as an interpretative tool for the standing requirement and as a standalone redress clause.     

An experimental study of sentencing by magistrates

A pilot study was carried out with 23 magistrates to develop a sentencing severity scale. An experiment was then conducted with 168 magistrates deciding sentences for simulated cases in 56 groups of three. The results showed that sentences were more severe when offenses were more serious, when offenders had a more serious criminal record, when offenders were male, and when offenders were of higher social status. The age of the offender, the race of the offender and victim, the plea, the prevalence of the offense, and whether breack of trust was involved, did not have significant effects on sentence severity. A comparison between real and simulated sentencing decisions showed that they were similar, and a comparison between individual and group decisions showed that the group decisions were more likely to be relatively severe than relatively lenient.This research was completed while Mr. Kapardis was supported by a Social Science Research Council studentship.     

REPORTS AND RESEARCH ARTICLES: The Office of Leader of the Opposition: An Examination of the Whitehall Version in the Commonwealth Caribbean

According to section 10 the Ministers of the Crown Act 1937 (1 Edw.8 & 1 Geo.6, c.38), the office of Leader of the Opposition was recognised insofar as it meant 'that member of the House of Commons who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to His Majesty's Government having the greatest numerical strength in that House'. The Speaker of the House of Commons would determine who that member of the House of Commons was to be if required. However, when it was time to create independence Constitutions for Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago in 1962, the provisions surrounding the appointment of the Leader of the Opposition were modelled on the relevant provisions of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1937, but transferred the responsibility of identifying the Leader of the Opposition from the Speaker to the Governor-General. Both these and later Constitutions in the Commonwealth Caribbean have introduced additional criteria to be used by Governor Generals (in the nine monarchies) and Presidents (in the three republics) to determine the holder of the office of Leader of the Opposition as well as the performance of their functions in cases of delinquency or vacancy.     

Priority and rescue financing in the Commonwealth Caribbean: lessons from the United States of America,United Kingdom and European Union

In investigating the operation of the rescue culture in the Commonwealth Caribbean as compared to the United Kingdom administration regime and Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, this paper laments that the Commonwealth Caribbean and the USA fail to consider key issues of post-petition priority for finance. It also delves into a critical, but overlooked, pillar of strong rescue frameworks: access to finance. Taking guidance from the European Union framework on state aid and the UK Funding for Lending and National Loan Guarantee, the author proposes a fair, transparent and efficient framework encompassing state involvement and state-driven private sector engagement.     

论我国的违宪审查体制与完善

本文立足于中国实际 ,在比较衡平了国外三种违宪审查类型的利弊后 ,认为我国实行以全国人大及其常委会为主的违宪审查制度较为适宜。文章还讨论了我国现行违宪审查制度的审查主体、审查范围及审查方式 ,并从设立专门工作机构和扩大全国人大常委会审查范围两方面提出了完善的建议。     

论刑事推定的合宪性审查

刑事推定不仅涉及实体法上犯罪构成要件的设置和程序法上证明责任的分配与承担,还涉及司法权力的重新配置,对其合宪性进行审查是亟待引起重视的一个新问题。推定的合宪性审查标准是多元的。无罪推定是现代刑事法的一项基本原则,是被告人应该享有的重要的宪法性权利,探讨推定的合宪性审查,必须审视推定与无罪推定之间的关系。     

论刑事推定的合宪性审查

刑事推定不仅涉及实体法上犯罪构成要件的设置和程序法上证明责任的分配与承担,还涉及司法权力的重新配置,对其合宪性进行审查是亟待引起重视的一个新问题。推定的合宪性审查标准是多元的。无罪推定是现代刑事法的一项基本原则,是被告人应该享有的重要的宪法性权利,探讨推定的合宪性审查,必须审视推定与无罪推定之间的关系。     

合宪性推定的正当性

合宪性推定是宪法审查中一种重要方法。其最初起源于美国，尔后逐渐被德国、日本、澳大利亚等法治国所采用。国内目前对于合宪性推定方法的认识尚有不足，在一定程度上影响了宪法审查制度的有效运作。对于合宪性推定方法的借鉴，不在于简单移植，重点在于从一般原理的角度来探求其所存在的正当性基础。从人权价值、规范体系、经济理性等多角度对合宪性推定的正当性进行论证，可发现合宪性推定是一种原理性的宪法方法，根基于宪法的最高性、法官的经济理性、人权的目的性、国家权力的手段性等。合宪性推定的正当性论证，在折射出目前宪法方法的贫瘠的同时，也有助于摆脱宪法文本浪漫主义的方法论困境，进而体现出宪法方法兼具政治与法律的特性。