Boodram (Respondent/Cross-appellant) v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Appellant/Cross-respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago)
Case ID: JCPC 2018/0106
Jurisdiction: Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
Case summary
Issue
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.
Facts
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.
Parties
Appellant(s)
Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
Respondent(s)
Naresh Boodram
Appeal
Justices
Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, Lord Hamblen, Lord Stephens, Sir Tim Holroyde
Hearing start date
16 November 2021
Hearing finish date
17 November 2021
| Watch hearing | ||
|---|---|---|
| 16 Nov 2021 | Morning session | Afternoon session |
| 17 Nov 2021 | Morning session | Afternoon session |
Judgment details
Judgment date
16 May 2022
Neutral citation
[2022] UKPC 20
- Judgment (PDF)
- Press summary (HTML version)
- Judgment on The National Archives (HTML version)
- Judgment on BAILII (HTML version)
| Watch Judgment summary | ||
|---|---|---|
| 16 May 2022 | Judgment Summary | |