The Jamaican Judicial System - Assignment Example

Comparative Legal System Prosecution questions Outline the facts of the case. The case Pratt and Morgan v Attorney-General for Jamaica, dealt with the incarceration of Earl Pratt and Ivan Morgan, who had been arrested and convicted for a murder that had been committed in 1977 (Pratt and Morgan v Attorney-General for Jamaica, 1993 ). The death sentence awarded to them was kept in abeyance, and these felons were detained in a portion of the prison that housed convicts sentenced to death. Pratt and Morgan suffered untold agony due to their condition. The uncertainty of their fate, which alternated between optimism and despondency, due to the numerous postponements of their execution, was also unbearable. There were eighty odd other prisoners in the same predicament, and it was upto the House of Lords to take these facts into account while deciding upon the appeal (Privy Council Appeal No. 10 of 1993, 2000). The delay in the execution of these two convicts could partly be attributed to the numerous petitions filed on their behalf, with the United Human Rights Committee and the Inter – American Commission on Human Rights. In addition, a four year delay occurred, due to the inadvertence of the Jamaican Court of Appeal, which failed to declare the reasons for having set aside the appellants special leave application to the Privy Council. They contended that they had been imprisoned in cells that did not provide even the minimum basic necessities. Moreover, they had lived under the impending fear of death by hanging, which had caused them sufficient psychological anguish to be considered a breach of the Constitution. Their agony was compounded by the acts of the authorities, who read out death warrants to them, on more than three occasions; and then most callously placed them in cells that were very near to the gibbet (Rawlins, 2000). Their appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Jamaica were turned down. However, the Privy Council accepted their contention and held that under section 17(1) of the Jamaican Constitution, they had been subjected to treatment that could reasonably be construed as equivalent to torture or inhuman treatment. Accordingly, the majority decision of the Privy Council was to reduce the sentence of hanging to death to one of life imprisonment. This decision, effectively reversed its own majority decision in the Riley case, wherein the Privy Council had held that delay beyond five years in executing a person condemned to death did not fall under the purview of section 17(1) of the Constitution of Jamaica and could not be construed to constitute inhuman treatment or torture. In Riley, the majority of the Privy Council held that the exception provided in section 17(2) of the Jamaican Constitution was inapplicable. 2. On what grounds was the decision reached to impose the death sentence? In Pratt and Morgan deemed a delay, in excess of five years, constituted cruel and inhuman treatment, as defined in section 17 of the Jamaican Constitution. The Jamaican Parliament had decided to reinstate capital punishment; however, such punishment was required to be inflicted within five years of the sentencing (Franklyn, 2008). In addition, there were several serious lapses. For instance, the Court of Appeal had opined that the appellants were to be hanged to death. However, it failed to provide reasons for its decision, for nearly three years. The Privy Council condemned this delay and stated that such decision should have been provided within three months of the hearing (Franklyn, 2008). Moreover, the Governor General had failed to seek the advice of the Privy Council, as to whether the condemned persons were to be put to death, in accordance with the provisions of sections 90 and 91 of the Jamaican Constitution. This constitutional requirement, which came into play the moment that the appeal had been dismissed by the Appellate Court, had been seriously breached by the Governor General (Franklyn, 2008). The outcome of this inexcusable bungling was that the condemned persons were incarcerated for 14 years without being executed. The Privy Council was vociferous in its condemnation of the Jamaican authorities, and held that there could be no doubt, what so ever that such delay connoted cruel and inhuman punishment; and a clear violation of the rights provided in section 17(1) of the Jamaican Constitution (Franklyn, 2008). Article 6(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, states that no provision of Article 6 can be utilized for either postponement or prevention of the abolition of the death penalty, serves to affirm that the latter Article, by itself does not prohibit the death penalty (Death penalty and Jamaicas image, 2008). Defence questions: 3. On what grounds can the court’s decision be challenged on grounds of constitutionality? The appellants approached the Jamaican Supreme Court to stay their execution. The basis of their contention was that section 17(1) of the Jamaican Constitution disallowed inhuman or degrading punishment. The appellants argued that the inordinate procrastination of their execution had caused them not inconsiderable mental anguish. In addition, they had been confined to cells that were in proximate to the actual place where the hangings were being conducted. This factor was also contributory to their extreme distress (Pratt and Morgan v Attorney-General for Jamaica, 1993 ). The time consumed by the appellants to exhaust all possible appellate measures was extended disproportionately beyond the required time, on account of the Governor General’s failure to act in a timely manner. The Privy Council held that the delay of 14 years could not be condoned under any circumstances. In addition, their Lordships opined that putting the convicts to death after detaining them for 14 years in custody, was tantamount to inhuman punishment that grossly violated the rights bestowed upon them by section 17(1) of the Constitution of Jamaica (Franklyn, 2008). 4. What is the status of the majority decision in Riley v Attorney-General of Jamaica? In the Riley case, their Lordships had ruled that section 17 of the Jamaican Constitution did not prevent the putting to death of a convict, for the reason that there had been an inordinate delay in carrying out the sentence. Albeit section 17(1) of the Jamaican Constitution disallowed the subjection of any person to torture or degrading or inhuman punishment; it was inapplicable to delayed executions, which were not in contravention of the law, when Jamaica had not gained independence. The Privy Council held that such capital punishment fell within the exception provided in section 17(2) of the Jamaican Constitution (Rudolf & Beyerlin, 1995. P. 690). Judicial decision: 5. What was the judges’ decision and how did they reach it? In the Pratt and Morgan case, the Privy Council held that if a person condemned to death was not executed, within five years of sentencing, then such delay constituted inhuman or degrading punishment, in accordance with section 17(1) of the Constitution of Jamaica. In other words, it was to be construed that a delay beyond five years in putting to death a person condemned to death should preclude the imposition of capital punishment (Nicholson, 2007). List of References Death penalty and Jamaicas image. (2008, February 10). Retrieved December 12, 2008, from Jamaica Gleaner: http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20080210/focus/focus5.html Franklyn, D. (2008, November 26). The bungling of Pratt and Morgan. Retrieved December 12, 2008, from Jamaica Gleaner: http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20081126/lead/lead4.html Nicholson, A. J. (2007, February 11). PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Death-penalty politics. Retrieved December 12, 2008, from Jamaica Gleaner: http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070211/cleisure/cleisure2.html Pratt and Morgan v Attorney-General for Jamaica, 4 All ER 769 (1993 ). Privy Council Appeal No. 10 of 1993. (2000, November 29). Retrieved December 12, 2008, from Web Cases House of Lords and Privy Council: http://www.hrothgar.co.uk/WebCases/pc/reports/00/38.htm Rawlins, H. (2000). The Caribbean Court of Justice: the History and Analysis of the Debate. Retrieved December 12, 2008, from http://www.caribbeancourtofjustice.org/papersandarticles/ccj_rawlins.pdf Rudolf, B., & Beyerlin, U. (1995. P. 690). Recht zwischen Umbruch und Bewahrung: Völkerrecht, Europarecht, Staatsrecht: Festschrift für. Springer. Read More