Visit UKSCThe latest news from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Introduction from Vicky Fox, Chief Executive
Dear friends,
I am pleased to introduce our annual newsletter, updating you on the work of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council over the last year.
One of the key highlights of 2024 was welcoming distinguished judge, the Hon. Dame Janice Pereira to sit on the JCPC in December.
Dame Janice was invited to sit with the JCPC by Lord Reed, and this was made possible by the gracious decision of His Majesty The King to appoint Dame Janice to the Privy Council. It was a matter of great celebration for the JCPC to welcome her to London, and we hope that this will be the first of many future occasions for judges from JCPC jurisdictions to sit with the Court both in person and virtually.
It has been a great pleasure to welcome other visitors too, from JCPC jurisdictions to the Court over the year and you can read about this later in the newsletter.
This year has been one of modernisation and improvement for the JCPC and the Supreme Court. After nearly three years work, we have launched a new case management system which allows all Court users to file papers electronically, make payments online and track the progress of their case automatically. There is also a direct feed from the case management system to our two new websites – one for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and one for the Supreme Court, allowing automated updates on case details on the website, making information available in a more timely and accessible way.
I hope that those of you who have already used our new website and user portal will find it a good improvement. My thanks to everyone who kindly took the time to test our new portal, give feedback, and help us design a system that works for Court users. You can read more about these changes in the newsletter.
The JCPC heard some very interesting and important cases again this year. We have selected a few of them below and have highlighted the issues that were considered and the outcome. For more detail about the Court's work, please take a look at our Annual Report and Accounts.
I hope you find this newsletter interesting, and I send you my warmest wishes for a happy and healthy 2025.
Vicky Fox
Chief Executive of the JCPC and UKSC
A message from Lord Briggs
This newsletter marks the end of my first year as the Justice with responsibility for reviewing JCPC procedures and it has been a significant one.
In May, Lord Reed’s proposal to welcome overseas judges to sit on the JCPC was approved by the King. In December, Dame Janice M. Pereira, former Chief Justice of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, joined us for a week and sat on three hearings from across the Caribbean. You can read more about Dame Janice’s visit below.
December has been a busy month in the Court as this month also marks the completion of our Change Programme and with that the successful launch of our new e-portal. This development is especially important for the JCPC jurisdictions as it gives the users of the Court the freedom to submit documents, track their case, make payments and much more without having to consider time zones.
We also published our new JCPC Rules and Practice Directions which apply to all cases filed from 2nd December 2024 onwards. These documents are available online via the links. Together, these rules and directions give a clear overview of the court’s role, its jurisdiction, administrative processes, fees, timescales and practical information.
This new platform is evidence of over two years of dedication and hard work from every team at the Court, from external advisers, and from Justices. We are very proud to finally be able to show you what we have been working on.
The Court has always been a symbol of transparency and a champion of open justice. Our public building, livestreamed hearings, and public events and forums, now supplemented by a new website and user portal together with advance publication of the parties’ cases, offers the public more information on each case than has ever been available before.
It is very important to me that we continue to lead the way in supporting and strengthening the openness of our courts and justice system – our work on the Change Programme is evidence that this dedication is shared amongst my judicial colleagues and everyone here.
I encourage you to join us our next user group on Wednesday 22nd January at 4:30pm (GMT) both in person and via Teams. If you would like to join, please email Grainne Hawkins on grainne.hawkins@supremecourt.uk
Retirement
The Deputy President, Lord Hodge, has announced his intention to retire on 31st December 2025 from the Supreme Court and the JCPC.
Lord Hodge has served as a Justice since 1st October 2013 and was appointed as Deputy President in January 2020.
On his decision to retire, Lord Hodge said: “It is and has been a great honour to serve the United Kingdom in the Supreme Court. I will greatly miss the company of my friends and colleagues in the Court but owe it to my wife to step back at this stage of our lives.”
It is expected that the Lord Chancellor will convene an independent selection commission under rules set by Parliament to fill the vacancy resulting from the forthcoming retirement of Lord Hodge.
Dame Janice joins the JCPC
The Hon Dame Janice M. Pereira DBE, former Chief Justice of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, was invited to sit with the JCPC by Lord Reed.
Born in the British Virgin Islands, Dame Janice attended the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, where she received her LLB (honours), and was called to the Bar in 1981. On 26th March 2018 Dame Janice was called to the Bench as an Honorary Bencher of the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple, and was later a High Court judge, before being appointed as a Justice of Appeal in 2009.
We were proud to welcome Dame Janice to the Court for a week in December. During her time with us she sat on three hearings: The Corporation of Hamilton (Appellant) v Attorney General and another (Respondents) (Bermuda), Ricardo Farrington (Appellant) v The King (Respondent) (Bahamas), and Steven Goran Stevanovich (Appellant) v Matthew Richardson and another (as Joint Liquidations of Barrington Capital Group Ltd (In Liquidation)) (Respondent) (Virgin Islands).
Alongside sitting in hearings, Dame Janice; hosted an Ask a Justice session with two schools from London, attended a reception hosted by the Society of Caribbean Lawyers, and took part in a Q&A session with our Judicial Assistants – we were so grateful to Dame Janice for her commitment and enthusiasm to take part in so much during her time with us.
Before she left, Dame Janice also took the time to speak to us about her week; you can hear from her by visiting our YouTube channel.
As we start our new year we are looking towards welcoming more visiting judges from the JCPC judiciary.
Visits to and from JCPC jurisdictions
We were delighted to welcome a number of colleagues from across the JCPC jurisdictions to the Court in 2024.
In October, Lord Hodge welcomed the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Brunei Darussalam, Dato Seri Paduka Steven Chong Wan Oon, to the JCPC as part of his wider visit to London. Lord Hodge is looking forward to his visit to Brunei in February.
We were delighted to welcome High Commissioners and Representatives from the JCPC jurisdictions as our guest at the England & Wales Opening of the Legal Year service at Westminster Abbey, as well as an international drinks reception marking the UK Supreme Court’s 15th anniversary.
JCPC staff, including the Chief Executive and the Registrar, had the opportunity to facilitate several learning sessions with officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on better understanding the work of the JCPC, the cases it hears and its methods of work. We are looking forward to continuing this collaboration in 2025.
In April, Lord Reed delivered an online lecture to the University of the West Indies, on the subject of how judges decide cases in the JCPC.
Caseload of the JCPC
In 2024:
- 109 cases were filed with the JCPC, including 4 on our new portal.
- 63 permission to appeals were filed.
- 58 cases were heard.
- the Court handed down 41 judgments.
Key Judgments
Below is a selection of notable cases from the last 12 months, which shows the range of issues that come before the JCPC:
(1) Shawn Campbell (2) Adidja Palmer (3) Kahira Jones and (4) Andre St John (Appellants) v The King (Respondent) No 2 (Jamaica), 14 March 2024
In 2014, following a 64-day jury trial in the Home Circuit Court in Kingston, Jamaica, the appellants were convicted of the murder of Clive “Lizard” Williams. At trial, the prosecution case was that Mr Williams and another man had been given two unlicensed firearms belonging to Palmer for safekeeping. Campbell summoned the two men to Palmer’s house after they had failed to comply with Palmer’s deadline for returning the weapons. The prosecution alleged that the two were attacked, and one escaped but Mr Williams was never seen again.
Over the course of the 64-day trial, there was a series of incidents involving the jury, and on the final day of the trial it was alleged that a member of the jury had attempted to bribe other members of the jury to acquit the appellants. The jury had already been reduced to 11, and if another juror had been discharged the trial could not have proceeded. The judge decided to proceed with his summing up and gave a direction to the jury reminding them of their function. By a majority of 10:1 the jury convicted all four appellants of Mr Williams’ murder. A fifth defendant was unanimously acquitted.
The appellants appealed against their conviction to the Court of Appeal of Jamaica, which dismissed their appeals. The Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal to the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council. The JCPC unanimously allowed the appeals and the appellants’ convictions were quashed on the ground of juror misconduct. The Board had considerable sympathy with the dilemma faced by the trial judge on the final day of a long and complex trial but considered that the approach taken by the judge was a material irregularity in the course of the trial, which made it necessary to quash the convictions.
The case was remitted to the Court of Appeal of Jamaica to decide whether to order a retrial of the appellants for the murder of Mr Williams. Read the full judgment on our website.
Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC (as Subrogee of Modrono's Bimini Place Ltd) (Appellant) v RAV Bahamas Ltd (Respondent) (Bahamas), 21 May 2024
The appellant ("Great Lakes") was the insurer of a yacht known as the Rum N' Coke (the "Yacht"). The owner of the Yacht was a company ("MBP").The respondent ("RAV") was the owner and operator of the Bimini Bay Marina situated on the island of Bimini in the Bahamas (the "Marina"). By a Boat Slip Lease Agreement ("BSL"), RAV granted to MBP the lease of a dock at the Marina. The BSL contained a clause that said MBP would be responsible for taking all necessary precautions to prevent theft. In the middle of July 2009, while the Yacht was docked at the Marina, an employee of the Marina received a call from an unknown individual claiming to be the owner of the Yacht. The individual instructed the employee to ready the Yacht for sailing and gave specific instructions. The employee did as he was instructed and readied the Yacht. Two days later the employee met two men, one of whom he assumed was the captain of the vessel, who paid the employee for his services. The Yacht was taken and has not been found. Great Lakes conducted an investigation, concluded that the owners were not involved in the theft of the Yacht and paid out the insurance claim. Great Lakes sued RAV (based on its right of subrogation), claiming damages for breach of contract and negligence.
The Supreme Court of the Bahamas found that RAV owed a duty of care which it had breached and awarded Great Lakes damages. RAV successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Bahamas, which quashed the decision of the lower court to award damages. Great Lakes appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The JCPC dismissed the appeal, concluding that the Court of Appeal was correct, as a matter of law, in overturning the decision of the Supreme Court of the Bahamas. Read the full judgment on our website.
Ervin Dean (Appellant) v Bahamas Power & Light (Respondent) (Bahamas), 4 July 2024
The Respondent terminated the Appellant's contract of employment without notice. The Appellant had been an employee of the Respondent for 30 years. The Respondent paid the Appellant $97,608.42 in accordance with the Employment Act 2001. The terms of the Appellant's employment contract were contained in an Industrial Agreement which set out the conditions upon which an employee's contract may be terminated with notice and provides that the Respondents cannot terminate an employee unjustly. The Appellant commenced a claim for damages for (i) breach of the terms of his employment contract; and (ii) unfair and wrongful dismissal. At first instance, the Judge found the termination was in breach of the Appellant's contract of employment and awarded damages of (i) $750,012.58 (reduced to $620,631.88 to take account of the sum already paid to the Appellant on termination); (ii) $10,980.64 representing accrued vacation and Christmas bonus; and (iii) $20,792.28 as an ex gratia payment made during the course of trial. The Respondent appealed on liability and quantum. The Court of Appeal upheld the Judge's finding on liability but revised the quantum award down to $174,806 on the basis that there was no evidence before the Judge to support 'such a handsome windfall'. The Appellant employee appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council seeking to reverse the Court of Appeal's decision to reduce the damages awarded.
The JCPC dismissed the appeal. Read the full judgment on our website.
Coomaravel Pyaneandee (Appellant) v Paul Lam Shang Leen and 6 others (Respondents) (Mauritius), 13 August 2024
In July 2015, the President of Mauritius appointed a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into and report on all aspects of drug trafficking in Mauritius. The appellant, a barrister, was summoned by letter dated 4 August 2017 to appear before the Commission "to give evidence/explanation regarding [his] unsolicited visits to prisoners involved in drugs trafficking and acts and doings amounting to perverting the course of justice". The appellant appeared before the Commission and was deposed. The subsequent Commission Report included a section on the appellant that was critical of him and suggested he was linked with illegal drug activities.
The appellant sought a judicial review of the Commission's Report, arguing that the Commission's comments amounted to findings that could be challenged. He argued that they should be expunged from the Report because their inclusion breached the rules of natural justice and was unreasonable and irrational. The respondent commissioners argued that they were not judicially reviewable findings but only a recital of evidence or observations against which no judicial review lies. The Supreme Court of Mauritius dismissed the appellant's judicial review, holding that the Report did not contain findings about the appellant but only comments and observations, which could not be judicially reviewed. The appellant appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The JCPC allowed the appeal, concluding that the impugned passages in the Report were amenable to judicial review and that the procedure adopted by the Commission in relation to the appellant did not accord with the principles of fairness and natural justice. Read the full judgment on our website.
Yonggao Pan (Appellant) v Minister of National Security (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago), 15 October 2024
This appeal concerned the statutory interpretation of section 16 of the Judicial Review Act, Chapter 7:08, (“the Act”) which entitles a person adversely affected by a decision to which the Act applies to request a statement of reasons from the decision-maker for the impugned decision. The appellant requested a statement of reasons from the respondent Minister of National Security for the Minister’s decision to deport him. The Minister did not accede to his request.
The High Court refused permission to apply for judicial review and found that the reasons given were adequate. The Court of Appeal found there was no automatic right to apply for judicial review and permission of the court would be required. The Court of Appeal also agreed with the trial judge that the reasons given were adequate. The Court of Appeal granted permission to apply to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Although the Board did not agree with all of the Court of Appeal’s reasoning, it nevertheless agreed that section 16(3) of the Act does not confer a right to bring judicial review proceedings for breach of section 16 itself. Section 16 does not create a statutory right to reasons. The person seeking reasons must make an application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings and must demonstrate an arguable ground for judicial review and sufficient standing before reasons pursuant to section 16(3) can be considered. Subject to satisfying those preconditions, it is nonetheless open to an aggrieved person to bring an application based on failure to provide reasons as forming an inherent part of one of the substantive judicial review grounds identified in the Act and/or to rely on the asserted failure to provide reasons itself as the only substantive ground for judicial review. The Board was satisfied that the deportation order itself adequately set out the reasons for the Minister’s decision. They were intelligible and sufficient to enable a judicial review challenge to be made. Accordingly, the application for leave to file judicial review proceedings against the Minister was properly refused.
The JCPC dismissed the appeal. Read the full judgment on our website.
Hybrid Hearings
We remind all users that we offer online hearings to Counsel and parties who are not based in the UK and who would find it preferable to appear before the Court virtually. The technology allows a full hearing to take place and we are able to televise the proceedings in the same way we do when the hearings are held in person.
New JCPC Website and online Portal now live
On December 4th 2024 the JCPC & UKSC launched a world-leading Case Management Portal and two new websites. These products were created with the intention to deliver a world class service, putting our users at the heart of everything we do. Throughout the Programme we sought users’ views and acted on their feedback. The main benefits that users have gained from the portal and websites are:
- Enabling users to interact with the administration of the JCPC at a time which suits them, filing documents digitally, and tracking the progress of their cases in real time.
- Faster updates about the work of the JCPC, with the interaction between the portal and new websites enabling the publication of case updates at the time they occur.
- Fresh new designs for the websites, complying with high accessibility standards.
- Enhanced ways of communicating with the JCPC for professional users, the public and school groups so they can plan their visit to our iconic building, book events, tours or make an enquiry.
The portal and websites are the centrepieces of a wide-ranging three-year Change Programme, now in its final year. It has transformed the JCPC & UKSC into modern, world-leading courts, which are open, transparent and focused on our users.
Registrar, Celia Cave, reflects on the new JCPC website and portal that the Change Programme has been working towards:
We are excited that our users are now able to see what we have been working on for the last two years. Our new website and online portal launched in December, and feedback so far has been very positive.
We applied findings from extensive user research to ensure that we built a website and case management system that delivers exactly what our users need. We hope you will agree that it is easy to use and makes interacting with the court simpler. Users in all jurisdictions can easily find information about how the JCPC works, as well as guidance on how to file applications and appeals online.
The portal allows users to make payments, upload documents and serve parties electronically. We hope that this will make it much easier for users in different jurisdictions and time zones to manage their cases at a time that suits them. Users can also track the progress of cases and access written cases for upcoming appeals. As always, our cases are live streamed on our website and recordings of hearings are available to watch at any time.
We are proud that the JCPC is now much more accessible for all users and we are excited to hear your feedback.
Users are reminded that the new JCPC Rules and Practice Directions came into force on 2nd December 2024 and apply to all cases filed from that date onwards. For cases issued before 2 December 2024, the old Rules and Practice Directions will continue to apply until the conclusion of the case.
Registry team update
In 2024 there has been several changes in the Registry Team. Yusra Kilic joined us as our new Registry Support Officer. Daniel Waller also joined the team as Programme Transition Lead for the Change Programme, having previously worked as a PA to several of the Justices.
Celia Cave returned from maternity leave as joint Registrar to work alongside Laura Angus.
Sophia May and Kelly-Anne Johnson were both promoted this year. Sophia now works as Judgments Clerk and Kelly-Anne as a Case and Registry Manager.