Caribbean Court Of Justice Upholds Pastor’s Conviction For Indecent Assault

Caribbean Court Of Justice Upholds Pastor's Conviction For ...
Published in CaribSeek by Doneth Brown-Reid

http://news.caribseek.com/index.php/caribbean-islands-news/trinidad-and-tobago-news/item/38939-caribbean-court-of-justice-upholds-pastor%E2%80%99s-conviction-for-indecent-assault

PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad (CCJ) -- Jippy Doyle, an evangelist, was convicted of the rape of a girl, then aged 13, and was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Doyle was the pastor of the Dominion Life Centre, Barbados where the girl and her mother were members.

Doyle appealed to the Barbados Court of Appeal who ruled that the High Court judge was wrong to tell the jury that the girl was legally "incapable of giving her consent to sexual intercourse", and that if the jury found that Doyle had intercourse with her there would be no difficulty in finding that he committed rape. 

The Court of Appeal acquitted Doyle of rape and substituted the lesser offence of indecent assault. That was an offence which, on the facts proved, the jury could have found him guilty. The Court of Appeal sentenced the appellant to three years' imprisonment from the date of the original sentence in accordance with relevant sentencing guidelines in force in Barbados. Doyle applied for leave to appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice against both the verdict and the sentence issued by the Barbados Court of Appeal. The CCJ dismissed Doyle’s application for leave to appeal, stating that there was “no arguable case that the Court of Appeal was wrong”. In addition, the CCJ noted several flaws in Doyle’s application. 

The CCJ reiterated that generally, it will only intervene in criminal cases where a serious miscarriage of justice may have occurred in the lower court or where a point of law of public importance is raised and the applicant persuades the Court that if not overturned a questionable precedent might be recorded. Since Doyle’s Counsel did not provide specific evidence to support his allegations that the trial was unfair, the CCJ saw no reason to grant leave to appeal.

This summary is intended to assist the Caribbean public in learning more about the work of the CCJ. It is not a formal document of the Court. The judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document and it can be downloaded below for further reading.

Download Related Document(s):

• Judgment Of The Court: Jippy Doyle vs. The Queen, 2011 -- Caribbean Court Of Justice. (3 Downloads)

CCJ Decision

The high cost of preventing employees from unionising

Source: International Law Office Published Nov. 7, 2012

In October 2000 the Trade Unions and Employers' Organisations (Registration, Recognition and Status) Act came into force in Belize. The act is intended to provide protection to both employers and employees to freely associate and form employees' and employers' organisations to protect their respective rights. While the act is designed to protect these rights, in a society such as Belize, where employers' organisations are uncommon, little if any benefit is derived by employers from the act. On the contrary, an employee's constitutional right to freely associate is entrenched in the act, thereby creating a new cause of action against an employer that violates an employee's right to unionise.

The Supreme Court is given extensive powers to redress the violation of an employee's rights under the act by making such orders as it considers just and equitable. Redress may include an order for reinstatement of an employee, restoration of benefits and other advantages and payment of compensation. The list is by no means exhaustive; but unlike similar laws in other jurisdictions, the act provides no guidance as to how the Supreme Court should exercise its discretion in awarding compensation.

The first claim made under the act was filed by six former employees of Mayan King Limited. The claimants were banana workers on Mayan King's banana farms. According to them, they were spearheading the movement to unionise the workers at Mayan King and were dismissed as a result of their union activities.

The Supreme Court determined that the termination of the claimants constituted union busting and that they were each entitled to BZ$70,000 as compensation for violation of their respective constitutional rights. On appeal by Mayan King, the Court of Appeal agreed that the claim was in private law against an employer and so there was no violation of the claimants' constitutional rights. However, the Court of Appeal stated that the act created a new cause of action and awarded one year's salary and BZ$30,000 to each claimant as compensation for injury to their pride and feelings.

Mayan King appealed to the Caribbean Court of Justice and on July 6 2012 the court delivered its landmark decision. The Caribbean Court of Justice upheld the trial judge's finding that the claimants' termination constituted union busting. However, it considered that an award of BZ$30,000 to each claimant together with one year's salary was high, particularly since the claim was in private law. The Caribbean Court of Justice reduced the award to BZ$15,000 for each claimant. The court stated that:

"The aim of the award cannot be to enrich unjustly or arbitrarily a claimant with a bountiful windfall. Further, the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct is to be considered more for its impact on the victim bearing in mind that the function of the civil law is ordinarily not to punish the defendant."

The BZ$15,000 award was described by the Caribbean Court of Justice as an award for distress and inconvenience. According to the court, the:

"dismissals entailed much more than ending an employment relationship. The dismissals were accompanied by the immediate expulsion of the claimants and their families from their homes... these dismissals justify awards to the Claimants for distress and inconvenience."

It appears, therefore, that the award was based on the particular facts of the case, and that such an award will not be merited in every case where a violation is established.

It was noted that the claimants' evidence to assess pecuniary loss was sparse and unsatisfactory. The losses should have been established by clear evidence, and in the absence of concrete testimony it was not open to the Court of Appeal to infer loss. The Caribbean Court of Justice took into account that the employees were paid fortnightly and so were entitled to two weeks' notice of their termination. A further two weeks was added since, on the facts of the case, the dismissals also entailed the claimants' finding new housing arrangements. The award of one year's compensation was therefore reduced to one month's wages. One claimant had adduced evidence that he was unemployed for a period of three months and so his compensation was increased to three months' wages.

While the decision of the Caribbean Court of Justice provides some guidance as to how the Supreme Court should in future determine compensation for violation of an employee's rights under the act, it is important to note that the compensation awarded to the claimants was largely affected by the particular facts of the case. This was not a case of simple dismissal, but had the added element of requiring the claimants to leave their homes on short notice. While the claimants did not in fact leave until thee months after their employment had been terminated, the Caribbean Court of Justice emphasised that the nature of the dismissal required them to find alternative accommodation within 24 hours and considered that this must have occasioned some mental distress

Inordinate Delay of Civil Appeal in Barbados

'Step on it' Published on: 2/28/09.
by HEATHER-LYN EVANSON

Source: Nation Newspaper, Barbados

THE ISLAND'S COURT OF APPEAL has come in for a tongue-lashing from the region's highest court.

It has to do with the length of time the local appellate court took to deliver one of its judgements.
Recently, the five judges of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) heard the civil appeal of Yolande Reid and Jerome Reid.

In their decision, the five judges spoke about the five years it took for the Court of Appeal to give its ruling.

Justice of Appeal Adrian Saunders, who delivered the judgement, said the CCJ's President Michael de la Bastide had previously spoken about the issue and had expressed the court's strong disapproval of judicial delays.

"The effectiveness of a judiciary is seriously compromised if it fails to monitor itself in respect of the time taken to deliver judgements and to arrest promptly any tendency to lapse in this aspect of its performance," said Justice Saunders.

"This is the second time we have had occasion to call attention to inordinate delays in the delivery of judgements in Barbados. We trust that effective remedial action, if not already taken, will now be taken to ensure that judgements are delivered within a reasonable time as required by the Constitution of Barbados," the appellate judge said.

The court went on to say it felt that no judgement should be outstanding for longer than six months.

"And unless a case is one of unusual difficulty or complexity, judgement should normally be delivered within three months at most," Justice of Appeal Saunders said.

Justice of Appeal Saunders sat with President of the Court de la Bastide and the Justices of Appeal Desirée Bernard, Jacob Wit and David Hayton.

Relying on CCJ Case ( Jamaican Extradition Case)

Jamaican businessman to be sent to US
published: Wednesday | October 10, 2007
Source : Jamaica Gleaner

Jamaican businessman Trevor Forbes is to be extradited to the United States to face drug -trafficking charges as a result of a United Kingdom Privy Council ruling on Monday.

Forbes, 58, of Wickie Wackie, Bull Bay in St. Andrew, is to be tried for allegedly arranging to import large quantities of marijuana into the United States (U.S.).

The U.S. authorities asked the Jamaican Government to extradite Forbes. He has been in custody since July 2003 when an extradition order was made in the Corporate Area Resident Magistrate's Court.

Forbes' lawyer , Frank Phipps Q.C., argued that the Extradition Act was unconstitutional because it breached Forbes' rights under section 16 of the Constitution, of freedom of movement and immunity from expulsion. He relied on the Privy Council's decision in the Caribbean Court of Justice case to support his argument that the Extradition Act should have been passed as 'special legislation' with a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament since it affected his client's fundamental human rights.

Solicitor General Michael Hylton, Q.C., submitted in response, that the Extradition Act did not breach or affect Forbes' constitutional rights, since the Constitution authorised the State to pass laws to allow for the extradition of persons to face trial in other countries for crimes committed abroad. The rights were, therefore, subject to such laws.

He argued that the Extradition Act contained reasonable safeguards for the rights of accused persons.

The panel, comprising Lords Hoffman, Scott, Rodger, Walker and Mance agreed with the Solicitor General's submissions and unanimously dismissed the appeal. They took the unusual step of not reserving judgment but instead delivered judgement immediately after hearing submissions.

The judgment could affect many other Commonwealth countries which have similar constitutional provisions and extradition laws, various interested persons, including representatives of the Commonwealth Secretariat, attended the hearing.

Attorneys Raphael Codlin and George Soutar appeared with Mr. Phipps and Director of Public Prosecutions Kent Pantry, Q.C., and Assistant Attorney General Julie Thompson appeared with Mr. Hylton.