The prosecution's right to appeal in Trinidad and Tobago: The State v Boyce

• Author: Derrick V Mckoy
• Position: Lecturer in Law, University of the West Indies, Faculty of Law, Mona, Jamaica
• Pages: 84-94

THE PROSECUTION'S RIGHT TO APPEAL

IN TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO:

THE STATE V BOYCE

DERRICK V MCKOY*

In strict terms, there was no right of appeal against a verdict of a court or jury

at common law. In English constitutional theory, there was a right to petition the

sovereign and later the Parliament for justice, and to some degree that theory is

reflected in our current scheme of final appeals, as is demonstrated by the language

used in most Commonwealth Caribbean Constitutions which provide for appeals to

'Her Majesty in Council.'1 The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago is an exception

in that while other Commonwealth Caribbean states appeal to the Queen in Council,

the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago provides specifically for appeals to the

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Nevertheless, the historical connection

remains.

The old Court of Kings Bench had the prerogative power to supervise other

tribunals and the prerogative writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition gave that

court an appellate-like function. When litigants in the US, in the absence of any

prescribed procedure, first struggled to bring an action in the Supreme Court, they

relied on the old prerogative writ of mandamus,2 and that procedure has been used

since to provoke the Supreme Court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction.3 In

English law there was also a writ of error, which was an order for the production of

the records of an inferior court, on the allegation that the record on its face would

Lecturer in Law, University of the West Indies, Faculty of Law, Mona, Jamaica.

1 Barbados and Guyana are now the exceptions, as the final court of appeal for those jurisdictions

is the Caribbean Court of Justice.

2 Marbury v Madison 5 U.S. (1 Craneh) 137 (1803). The US Constitution provides that judicial

power of the United States shall vest in the Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the

Congress may from time to time establish, and the United States Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat.

73) established the US federal judiciary, but neither made provision for the composition or

procedures of any of the courts, leaving this to Congress to decide, which had not been done at

the time of the case.

3 Per Marshall CJ, Marbury v Madison ibid, 'To enable this court, then, to issue a mandamus, it

must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to

exercise appellate jurisdiction.'