The Queen v Calaney Flowers
| Jurisdiction | Caribbean States |
| Judge | Mr Justice Saunders,Wit,Anderson,Barrow,Burgess,Mr Justice Anderson,Mr Justice Wit,Mr Justice Anderson, JCCJ,Mr Justice Saunders, PCCJ,Mr Justice Wit, JCCJ |
| Judgment Date | 29 September 2020 |
| Court | Caribbean Court of Justice |
| Docket Number | CCJ Appeal No BZCR2019/002 |
| Date | 29 September 2020 |
[2020] CCJ 16 (AJ) BZ S
IN THE CARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICE
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
The Honourables Mr Justice A Saunders, PCCJ
Mr Justice J Wit, JCCJ
Mr Justice W Anderson, JCCJ
Mr Justice D Barrow, JCCJ
Mr Justice A Burgess, JCCJ
CCJ Appeal No BZCR2019/002
BZ Criminal Appeal No 2 of 2017
Mrs Cheryl-Lynn Vidal SC for the Appellant
Mr Anthony Sylvestre for the Respondent
Chefette Restaurants Ltd v Harris [2020] CCJ 6 (AJ) (BB)
Chung v AIC Battery and Automotive Services Co Ltd [2013] CCJ 2 (AJ), (2013) 82 WIR 357
DPP v Anglin (Cayman Islands CA, 6 November 2014)
Davern v Messel (1984) 155 CLR 21
DPP v Fabian Bain (Belize CA, 8 March 2007)
Exp Copeland (1852) 2 De GM & G 914
Hyles v DPP [2018] CCJ 12 (AJ), (2019) 93 WIR 353
International Environments Ltd v Commissioner of Income Tax [2019] CCJ 18 (AJ)
R v Dorking Justices, ex p Harrington [1984] 3 WLR 142
Kepner v United States 195 US 100 (1904)
Kodagali (Dead) v The State of Karnataka (India CA, 12 October 2018)
Law Officers v Guest (No 2) (Guernsey CA, 9 January 2003)
Luximon v Minister for Justice and Equality [2018] IESC 24, [2018] 2 IR 542
M v R (1994) HCA 35, 181 CLR 487
Masper v Brown (1875) 1 CPD 97
Matenga v R [2009] NZSC 18, [2009] 3 NZLR 145
Mullen R (on the application of) Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2004] UKHL 18
Persuad v Nizamudin [2020] CCJ 4 (AJ) (GY)
Pinner v Everet [1969] 3 All ER 257
Popular Democratic Movement v Electoral Commission [2012] 5 LRC 109
Pryor v The City Offices Company (1883) 10 QBD 504
R v Bentham [2005] UKHL 18, [2005] 2 All ER 65
R v George 2017 SCC 38, [2017] 1 S C R
R. v Graveline 2006 SCC 16, [2006] 1 SCR 609
R v Haddy (1944) 29 Cr App R 182
R v Hussain exp DPP (1965) 8 WIR 65
R v Lewis [2007] CCJ 3 (AJ), (2007) 70 WIR 75
R v Palmer (1784) 2 East PC 898
R v Pendleton [2001] UKHL 66
R v Pope [2012] EWCA Crim 2241
Rainey v Greater Glasgow Health Board [1987] UKHL 16, [1987] AC 224
R v Newcastle upon Tyne Justices exp Skinner [1987] 1 WLR 312
Smith v R [2000] UKHL 49, [2000] 1 WLR 1644
Spillers Ltd v Cardiff Assessment Committee and Pritchard [1931] 2 KB 21
State of Trinidad and Tobago v Boyce [2006] UKPC 1, [2006] 2 AC 76
Whitehorn v R [1983] HCA 42, 152 CLR 657
Antigua and Barbuda
Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2004
Bangladesh
Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, s 417
Barbados
Criminal Appeal Act, Rev Ed 1971, Cap 113A
Belize
Belize Constitution, Rev Ed 2011, Cap 4, si00
Court of Appeal Act, Rev Ed 2011, Cap 90, ss 3, 49 (1) and (2)(b)
Indictable Procedure Act, Rev Ed 2011, Cap 96, s 65C
Botswana
Court of Appeal Act 1972, s 12(1)
Canada
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Criminal Code of Canada, R S C 1985, c C-46, ss 676, 686 (4)(b)(ii)
Cayman Islands
Criminal Procedure Code (2011 Revision), s 129
Dominica
Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Dominica) Act, Rev Ed 2009, Chap 4:02
Grenada
West Indies Associated States Supreme Court (Grenada) (Amendment) Act 2012
Guyana
Court of Appeal Act, Rev Ed 2010, Cap 3:01
India
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, ss 372, 377, 378
Jamaica
Gun Court Act 1974
Child Care and Protection (Amendment) Act 2018
Trafficking in Persons (Prevention, Suppression and Punishment) (Amendment) Act 2018
Kenya
Criminal Procedure Code Cap 75, s 379(5)
Malaysia
Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 50(2)
Namibia
Criminal Procedure Act 1977, s 316A 1(a)
Nigeria
Court of Appeal Act Chap 75, s 20(1)
Pakistan
Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, s 417
New Guinea
District Courts Act Chap 40 (Papua New Guinea), s 219(3)
Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code, Rev Ed 2012, Chap 68, s 374(3)
St Kitts & Nevis
Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Saint Christopher and Nevis) Act, Rev Ed 2002, Cap 3.11
St Vincent and the Grenadines
Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) Act, Rev Ed 2009, Cap 24
South Africa
Criminal Procedure Act 1977, ss 310(1), (2)
Sri Lanka
Code of Criminal Procedure Act 1979, s 337 (1)
Trinidad and Tobago
Court of Appeal Rules
Miscellaneous Provisions (Trial by Judge Alone) Act 2017
Offences Against the Person Act, Rev Ed 2015, Chap 11:08
Summary Courts Act, Rev Ed 2015, Chap 4:20
Supreme Court of Judicature Act, Rev Ed 2015, Chap 4:01, s 65E
Turks and Caicos Islands
Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Rev Ed 2009, Ch 3.03, ss 57–63
Uganda
Criminal Procedure Code Act Chap 116, s 45
United Kingdom
Criminal Justice Act 2003, ss 48 and 58
Zambia
Court of Appeal Act 2016, s 13(3)
Archbold J F, Pleading, Evidence and Practice in Criminal Cases (36 th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 1966)
Bailey D, Bennion on Statutory Interpretation: a code (7 th edn, LexisNexis 2017)
Belize, Hansard, Senate, 20 June 2011, p 10 (Godwin Hulse)
Belize, Hansard, 10 September 2010
Bilder MS, ‘The Origin of the Appeal in America’ (1997) 48 Hastings LJ 913
Bohlander M, ‘Prosecution Appeals against Acquittals in Bench trials The Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Government's Fear of the Dark (2005) 69 J Crim L 326, 329
Bray S L, ‘Not Proven: Introducing a Third Verdict’ (2005) 72 U Chi L Rev 1299
Devlin P, Trial by Jury (Stevens & Sons Limited 1956) 165
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950
Garner B, Black's Law Dictionary, (7 th edn, West Publishing Co, 1999)
Greer S, ‘Miscarriages of Criminal Justice Reconsidered’ (1994) 57 Mod L Rev 58
Jones O, Bennion on Statutory Interpretation: a code (5th edn, LexisNexis 2013)
Magna Carta 1215
Marshall P D, ‘A Comparative Analysis of the Right to Appeal’ (2011) 22 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 1
Ramgoolam R, and Seetahal D, Commonwealth Caribbean Criminal Practice and Procedure (5 th edn, Routledge-Cavendish 2019)
Roberts S, Preventing Miscarriages of Justice, paper presented at Institute of Law Jersey Conference — Does Jersey need a Criminal Code? 2 November 2015
Rizzolli M, ‘Why Public Prosecutors Cannot Appeal Acquittals’ (2010) 15 (1) Studi e note di economia (Economic studies and notes) 81
Xanthaki H, Drafting Legislation, Art and Technology of Rules for Regulation (Hart Publishing 2014)
Court of Appeal Act Chapter 90 — Indictable Procedure Act Chapter 96 — Act No. 5 of2011 — non-textual amendments — trial by judge alone — acquittals — finality of acquittals — prosecution appeals — statutory interpretation — statutes in pari materia — plain meaning rule — double jeopardy — directed verdicts — miscarriage of justice — retrials
Ms Flowers was tried in May 2016 before the Honourable Justice Troadio Gonzalez, as he then was, sitting without a jury, on an indictment charging her with one count of murder and one count of attempt to murder. Counsel for Ms Flowers, Mr Sylvestre, made a no case submission which was not upheld by the trial judge and subsequently, Mr Sylvestre presented the case for the defence. On 24 March 2017, the trial judge delivered a verdict of not guilty and Ms Flowers was acquitted.
Pursuant to section 65C (3) of the Indictable Procedure Act Chapter 96, the Director of Public Prosecutions (the DPP) applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against the acquittal and that court dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction. The court reasoned that section 65C (3) was circumscribed by section 49(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal Act Chapter 90, insofar that, the prosecution's right of appeal was limited to instances where the trial judge directed the acquittal of the accused at the close of the prosecution's case.
The DPP sought and obtained special leave from the CCJ to plead the single ground of appeal that the Court of Appeal erred in law in its interpretation of section 65C of the Indictable Procedure Act. The appeal was heard by this Court on 10 July 2020 and 14 July 2020 and it was ordered that the appeal be allowed with reasons to follow.
The Honourable Justice Anderson delivered the main judgment of the Court and the Honourable Justice Saunders, President and the Honourable Justice Wit delivered concurring judgments. All these judgments arrived at the conclusion that the appeal be allowed and the decision of the Court of Appeal set aside with the effect that the application by the DPP to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal against the verdict of the trial judge must now be heard by that court.
The DPP's argument before this Court was that section 65C (3) gave a clear and unambiguous right of appeal to the prosecution against acquittals in a judge alone trial and the procedure for exercising that right was set out in sections 49(2) and (5) of the Court of Appeal Act. Mr Slyvestre contended that it could not have been the intention of the Legislature to amplify the prosecution's right of appeal to circumstances other than those set out in section 49(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal Act as this interpretation would lead to an incongruous system for prosecution appeals and would expose the accused to double jeopardy.
Justice Anderson identified the main issue of determination as whether section 65C of the Indictable Procedure Act recognised the right of the prosecution to appeal only in the three circumstances set out in section 49(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal or whether section 65C created an independent and additional right of appeal.
Justice Anderson addressed the issue of double jeopardy using the case of Queen v. Lewis 1 where this Court said that the traditional finality accorded to acquittals was rooted in the principle that no one should be tried twice for the same offence. Nonetheless, Justice Anderson explained using James Anthony Hyles and Mark Roy den Williams v. the DPP, 2 that the principle of double jeopardy was not absolute. It only acted as a safeguard to...
To continue reading
Request your trial