Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Respondent) v FR (Appellant) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0083

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

F. R. (Anonymized pursuant to the Order of the Court dated 26 October 2022)

Respondent(s)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

Issue

Has the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago breached the constitutional rights of the appellant as a victim of crime, by failing to prosecute the individual accused of assaulting her within a reasonable period of time?

Facts

The appellant, FR, alleges that she was sexually assaulted on 31st March 2017 when she was 16 years old. The accused was charged on 16th October 2021. The appellant alleges that there have been significant delays and adjournments caused by the State in the prosecution of the accused. The appellant has suffered significant psychiatric harm as a result of the delay. She argues that the State has failed to put appropriate mechanisms in place or allocate sufficient funding to ensure the case is determined in a reasonable time, and she alleges that this is in breach of her rights as guaranteed by the 1976 Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago (“the Constitution”). On 29th November 2021, the appellant accordingly filed a constitutional motion, in which she argued that the State has violated and continues to violate her rights under the Constitution. She requested several declarations from the High Court to the effect that the State’s failures breach the constitutional rights of victims of crime generally and her rights specifically. In particular, she claims that the following rights have been breached: Article 4(a), protecting the right to life, liberty, and security of the person; Article 4(b), protecting the right to equality before the law and the protection of the law; and Article 5(2)(h), protecting against deprivation by the state of the right to procedural provisions which are necessary to give effect and protection to the rights and freedoms. She also sought an order compelling the state to ensure that her claim was completed expeditiously and damages. The judge was not satisfied that the claimant’s right to protection of life, liberty and security had been breached by the state, or that the state had failed to put mechanisms in place and allocate sufficient resources to ensure that criminal matters can be concluded expeditiously generally. However, with reference to the law concerning children, as the appellant was a child at the time of the offence, the judge found that the claimant had not been adequately afforded the protection of the law. As such, the judge awarded nominal damages of $60,000.00 in recognition of the breach of her rights. The judge also issued orders of mandamus compelling the state to ensure the trial of the accused was completed expeditiously and compelling the state to provide the appellant with counselling. The Attorney General appealed to the Court of Appeal, who allowed the appeal. The Court of Appeal held that there is no right to a trial within a reasonable time under the Constitution and that the appellant’s rights to protection of the law had not been violated. The Court of Appeal also held that the court did not have the power to issue the orders of mandamus. The appellant now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Date of issue

19 August 2025

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Back to top