Jay Chandler (Appellant) v The State (Respondent) (No 2) (Trinidad and Tobago) - JCPC 2020/0051

Jay Chandler (Appellant) v The State (Respondent) (No 2) (Trinidad and Tobago) - JCPC 2020/0051
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago

On 17 August 2011, Jay Chandler was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by hanging. On 12 December 2013, his conviction and sentence were upheld by the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago. On 2 August 2016, permission to appeal against conviction was granted by the Privy Council. On 12 March 2018, following a hearing on 16 January 2018, the appeal was dismissed by a majority of the Board (Lords Carnwath, Sumption and Reed; with Lords Kerr and Lloyd-Jones dissenting).

On 27 June 2018, the Caribbean Court of Justice ("CCJ") in Nervais v the Queen [2018] CCJ 19 (AJ) found that the mandatory death penalty in Barbados violated rights protected under the Constitution of Barbados, overturning the previous decision of the Privy Council in Boyce v the Queen [2005] 1 AC 400. In Boyce, the Board had held, by a majority of five-to-four, that the ‘savings clause’ in the Barbados Constitution immunised the mandatory death penalty from constitutional challenge.

On 18 February 2019 and 23 March 2020 respectively, permission to appeal against the mandatory death sentence for murder in Trinidad and Tobago was granted by the Privy Council in Burris v the State (JCPC 108/57) and Cohen v the State (JCPC 2019/56). The issue in those cases is whether, following the CCJ’s decision in Nervais, the Privy Council’s previous decision in Matthew v the State [2005] 1 AC 433, which upheld the mandatory death sentence in Trinidad and Tobago for similar reasons given in Boyce, should be reconsidered.

Mr Chandler now appeals to the Privy Council against sentence, arguing that, the mandatory death sentence for murder in Trinidad and Tobago is unconstitutional.

Issue

Is the mandatory death sentence in Trinidad and Tobago, pursuant to section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1925, unconstitutional?

The Board unanimously dismisses the appeal. Lord Hodge delivers the judgment of the Board.
More information is available on our website.

Naresh Boodram (Respondent/Cross-Appellant) v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Appellant/Cross-Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago) - JCPC 2018/0106
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
Mr Boodram was convicted of murder on 27 November 1996 and sentenced to death. In 2007, Mr Boodram commenced proceedings to have his death sentence quashed and to be resentenced by the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago. The High Court commuted his sentence to one of life imprisonment, considering that it did not have discretion to resentence him individually, and made no order as to costs. Mr Boodram appealed successfully to the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago, who found that the High Court was not constrained to impose a sentence of life imprisonment.
The Court of Appeal remitted his case to the High Court to consider the appropriate sentence in the circumstances. The Court of Appeal made no order as to costs. The Attorney General is pursuing an appeal before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in relation to the nature and limits of the High Court’s discretion to resentence Mr Boodram. Mr Boodram cross-appeals in respect of the Court of Appeal’s decision that there should be no costs award in his favour.
Issues
What is the nature of the exercise engaging the Court when it is asked to grant relief under section 14 of the Constitution in a case such as the present? In light of previous decisions of the Judicial Committee, including Pratt & Morgan, is it open to a Court exercising its power to grant relief under section 14 of the Constitution to substitute a sentence other than life imprisonment when commuting a death sentence? If it is, in what circumstances, and how, should the Court exercise the power to impose some other sentence? Subject to the above, would it be appropriate for a Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 14 of the Constitution, to substitute a sentence other than life imprisonment when commuting a death sentence in a case such as the present?

Cross-Appeal

Whether Mr Boodram should be awarded his costs of the proceedings before the courts below.
The Board dismisses the Attorney General’s appeal and allows Mr Boodram’s cross-appeal. Lord Lloyd-Jones and Sir Tim Holroyde deliver the Board’s unanimous judgment.

More information is available on our website.