Tweet
<DIV id=printReady>
'Death penalty was not valid' - Privy Council orders resentence for 'Grenada 13'
published: Thursday | February 8, 2007 <DIV class=KonaBody PgAjQ="true">
LONDON, (CMC):
The London-based Privy Council yesterday ruled that the death sentence imposed on the former Deputy Prime Minister of Grenada, Bernard Coard, and several others conivicted of murdering left wing Prime Minister Maurice Bishop in 1983, was invalid and ordered that the men be resentenced.
In a 12-page ruling, the Law Lords said that the case against Coard and 12 others should be "remitted to the Supreme Court of Grenada for the appellants to be sentenced in accordance with the construction of section 230 of the Criminal Code which their Lordships have indicated, taking into account the progress made by the appellants during their time in prison."
"Their Lordships do not think that in practice the relief sought by the appellants in relation to their sentences was ever available through the ordinary avenue of the appeal," the Privy Council, the highest court in Grenada ruled, adding that it would "humbly advise Her Majesty that this appeal should be allowed and that it should be declared that the sentence of death imposed upon the appellants was invalid".
Their Lordships ruled the man-datory sentence of death was unconstitutional.
Coard and the 12 other appellants, including the former head of the People's Revolutionary Army (PRG) Hudson Austin, were convicted of murdering Bishop and other members of his left wing administra-tion during a palace coup in 1983.
Unconstitutional
On August 15, 1991, the Governor-General signed warrants in respect of each of the appellants commuting their death sentence to life imprisonment on condition that the convicted men would be "kept in custody to hard labour for the remainder of his natural life."
But the men went before the Privy Council contending that the imposition of the death sentence was unconstitutional.
The Privy Council noted that the State did not contest that point and pointed to several cases involving similar constitutions of other Caribbean States. It said upon the true construction of the Grenadian Constitution, such a sentence was unconstitutional at the time it was passed in 1986.
"The result is that section 230 of the Criminal Code must be interpreted to mean, and has meant since the constitution came into force in 1974, that the death penalty for murder is discretionary: a person convicted of murder may be sentenced to death but may instead be given a lesser sentence. The judge did not exercise this discretion and the sentence was, therefore, unlawful."
The Privy Council also said there could be "both logic and practical sense" in the arguments put forward by the lawyers for the convicted men that "the validity of the sentence of death was just as much res judicata as the validity of the conviction".
But it noted that the legality of the mandatory death sentence imposed upon the appellants has never been the subject of judicial decision and that while it could have been raised before the Court of Appeal, "the correct answer would have been that it was unlawful".
"But that follows from the principle that judicial decisions on the meaning of the constitution have retrospective effect," the Law Lords said, noting it is unrealistic to expect that the argument which succeeded in a previous case "would have been entertained, let alone succeeded, before the Court of Appeal".
The Privy Council also noted that while the sentence in question was death, it would not have allowed the principle of res judicata to stand in the way of granting relief if the appellants were still at risk of execution.
"But the validity of the life sentence substituted by the warrant of commutation is dependent upon the validity
'Death penalty was not valid' - Privy Council orders resentence for 'Grenada 13'
published: Thursday | February 8, 2007 <DIV class=KonaBody PgAjQ="true">
LONDON, (CMC):
The London-based Privy Council yesterday ruled that the death sentence imposed on the former Deputy Prime Minister of Grenada, Bernard Coard, and several others conivicted of murdering left wing Prime Minister Maurice Bishop in 1983, was invalid and ordered that the men be resentenced.
In a 12-page ruling, the Law Lords said that the case against Coard and 12 others should be "remitted to the Supreme Court of Grenada for the appellants to be sentenced in accordance with the construction of section 230 of the Criminal Code which their Lordships have indicated, taking into account the progress made by the appellants during their time in prison."
"Their Lordships do not think that in practice the relief sought by the appellants in relation to their sentences was ever available through the ordinary avenue of the appeal," the Privy Council, the highest court in Grenada ruled, adding that it would "humbly advise Her Majesty that this appeal should be allowed and that it should be declared that the sentence of death imposed upon the appellants was invalid".
Their Lordships ruled the man-datory sentence of death was unconstitutional.
Coard and the 12 other appellants, including the former head of the People's Revolutionary Army (PRG) Hudson Austin, were convicted of murdering Bishop and other members of his left wing administra-tion during a palace coup in 1983.
Unconstitutional
On August 15, 1991, the Governor-General signed warrants in respect of each of the appellants commuting their death sentence to life imprisonment on condition that the convicted men would be "kept in custody to hard labour for the remainder of his natural life."
But the men went before the Privy Council contending that the imposition of the death sentence was unconstitutional.
The Privy Council noted that the State did not contest that point and pointed to several cases involving similar constitutions of other Caribbean States. It said upon the true construction of the Grenadian Constitution, such a sentence was unconstitutional at the time it was passed in 1986.
"The result is that section 230 of the Criminal Code must be interpreted to mean, and has meant since the constitution came into force in 1974, that the death penalty for murder is discretionary: a person convicted of murder may be sentenced to death but may instead be given a lesser sentence. The judge did not exercise this discretion and the sentence was, therefore, unlawful."
The Privy Council also said there could be "both logic and practical sense" in the arguments put forward by the lawyers for the convicted men that "the validity of the sentence of death was just as much res judicata as the validity of the conviction".
But it noted that the legality of the mandatory death sentence imposed upon the appellants has never been the subject of judicial decision and that while it could have been raised before the Court of Appeal, "the correct answer would have been that it was unlawful".
"But that follows from the principle that judicial decisions on the meaning of the constitution have retrospective effect," the Law Lords said, noting it is unrealistic to expect that the argument which succeeded in a previous case "would have been entertained, let alone succeeded, before the Court of Appeal".
The Privy Council also noted that while the sentence in question was death, it would not have allowed the principle of res judicata to stand in the way of granting relief if the appellants were still at risk of execution.
"But the validity of the life sentence substituted by the warrant of commutation is dependent upon the validity
Comment