Edwards and Haynes v The Queen
| Jurisdiction | Caribbean States |
| Judge | Saunders, J.CCJ |
| Judgment Date | 27 November 2015 |
| Court | Caribbean Court of Justice |
| Docket Number | CCJ Appeal No. BBCR2015/006; BB Criminal Appeal No. 9 & 10 of 2013 |
| Date | 27 November 2015 |
Caribbean Court of Justice
Saunders, J.CCJ; Anderson, J.CCJ; Rajnauth-Lee, J.CCJ
CCJ Appeal No. BBCR2015/006; BB Criminal Appeal No. 9 & 10 of 2013
Mr. Andrew Pilgrim QC, Ms. Angella Mitchell-Gittens and Ms. Alexandria Thomas for the applicants
Mrs. Donna C B Babb-Agard QC and Mr. Alliston G Seale for the respondent
Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction and sentence — Mandatory death penalty — Special leave required — Whether Court of Appeal erred in law when it allowed convictions to stand solely based alleged oral confessions — Whether imposition of mandatory death penalty unconstitutional despite changes to legislation — No decision of the Court of Appeal to date on constitutionality of mandatory death penalty — Application for special leave to appeal against death penalty stayed — Question of constitutionality of death penalty remitted to Court of Appeal to determine appropriate steps to have question judicially resolved.
In June 2013, Vincent Edwards and Richard Haynes (“the applicants”) were convicted of murder. Each was sentenced to death. The Court of Appeal of Barbados affirmed the convictions and sentences. The men now wish to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision. They have also applied for permission to pursue their appeals as poor persons.
As this is a criminal case the applicants do not have a right of appeal. Before they can mount their appeals they must first seek and obtain the permission of this Court. Such permission is given if, for example, they can convince us that the grounds of appeal raise ‘a point of law of great public importance’; [See Rambarran v. The Queen [2015] CCJ 11 (AJ).] or if they demonstrate that ‘there is a realistic possibility of a miscarriage of justice’; [See Cadogan v. The Queen [2006] CCJ 4 (AJ)] or if we are satisfied that ‘the case warrants an appeal before the final court’. [See Lovell v. The Queen [2014] CCJ 19 (AJ)] There is therefore a mix of objective criteria to be met coupled with an extensive discretion on the part of this Court.
In determining whether or not to grant permission – or Special Leave – to appeal, the Court looks principally at the proposed grounds of Appeal against the background of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the trial judge's summation (if available), [Caribbean Court of Justice (Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules, 2015, r 10.14(1)(c).] and counsel's filed submissions which ordinarily will indicate the respective assessments of the parties as to the nature and merit of the proposed appeal.
The applicants propose to argue two main grounds of appeal. One ground relates to their convictions; the other, to the death sentences imposed. As to the former, if granted leave, they intend to argue that the Court of Appeal erred in law when it allowed their convictions to stand solely on the basis of alleged oral confessions. When reduced to writing in a police officer's notebook, the respective confessions were never initialed or signed by either of the men.
An appeal based on an un-initialed confession recorded in a policeman's notebook actually came before the Court previously, in Francis v. R. [ [2009] CCJ 9 (AJ)] On that occasion Francis was given special leave to appeal, but the precise point being advanced in this case was not fully determined in the majority opinion that ultimately was rendered in that appeal. The issue is again to be argued in the case of Sealy v. R [CCJ Criminal Appeal No. BBCR2015/005] which is very soon set for hearing before this Court. There can be little doubt that the point in question satisfies all the criteria listed at [2] above and, in this case, the Court had little hesitation in granting special leave to argue this ground.
Other considerations attach to the intended appeal against...
To continue reading
Request your trial