Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
  • About Us
    • Brief History of the Court
    • Court Overview
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Past Chief Justices
      • Sir Hugh Rawlins
      • Sir Brian George Keith Alleyne
      • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Adrian Saunders
      • Hon. Sir Charles Michael Dennis Byron
      • Rt. Hon. Sir Vincent Floissac
      • Honourable Sir Lascelles Lister Robotham
      • More..
        • Hon. Neville Algernon Berridge
        • Sir Neville Peterkin
        • Sir Maurice Herbert Davis
        • Justice P. Cecil Lewis
        • Sir Allen Montgomery Lewis
    • Judicial Officers
      • Justices of Appeal
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Davidson Kelvin Baptiste
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Mario Michel
        • Her Ladyship, the Hon. Justice Gertel Thom
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Paul Anthony Webster [Ag.]
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Gerard Farara, KC
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Trevor Ward, KC
      • High Court Judges
      • Masters
    • Court of Appeal Registry
    • Court Connected Mediation
      • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Mediation Publications
    • More…
      • Career Opportunities
      • Legal Internship
      • Transcript Requests
      • Directory
  • Judgments
    • Privy Council
    • Caribbean Court of Justice
    • Court Of Appeal Judgments
    • High Court Judgments
    • Digests of Decisions
    • Country
      • Anguilla
      • Antigua & Barbuda
      • Grenada
      • Montserrat
      • Saint Kitts and Nevis
      • Saint lucia
      • Saint Vincent & The Grenadines
      • Territory of the Virgin Islands
    • Year
      • 1972 – 1990
        • 1972
        • 1973
        • 1975
        • 1987
        • 1989
        • 1990
      • 1991 – 2000
        • 1991
        • 1992
        • 1993
        • 1994
        • 1995
        • 1996
        • 1997
        • 1998
        • 1999
        • 2000
      • 2001 – 2010
        • 2001
        • 2002
        • 2003
        • 2004
        • 2005
        • 2006
        • 2007
        • 2008
        • 2009
        • 2010
      • 2011 – 2019
        • 2011
        • 2012
        • 2013
        • 2014
        • 2015
        • 2016
        • 2017
        • 2018
        • 2019
    • Judgment Focus
  • Sittings & Notices
    • Schedule of Sittings
    • Court of Appeal Sittings
    • Chamber Hearing (Appeals)
    • Case Management (Appeals)
    • High Court Sittings
    • Status Hearings
    • Special Sittings
    • Notices
  • Court Procedures & Rules
    • ECSC Court of Appeal Rules
    • ECSC (Sittings of the Court) Rules, 2014
    • Civil Procedure Rules [WEB]
    • ECSC Civil Procedure Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to Nov 2015]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2014
      • ECSC Civil Procedure (Amendment) (No.2) Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to May 2014]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2011
    • ECSC Criminal Procedure Rules
      • Criminal Procedure Rules SI No. 22 of 2015
    • ECSC Sentencing Guidelines
    • Non Contentious Probate Rules and Administration of Estates
    • Family Proceedings Rules
    • More..
      • Election Petition Rules
      • Legal Profession Disciplinary Procedure Rules (St. Lucia)
      • Code Of Judicial Conduct
      • Court Forms
        • Introduction of E-Filing
        • BVI Commercial Division E-Filing
        • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Court Proceedings Fees
      • SILK Application Procedure
      • Practice Directions
      • Practice Notes
      • Video Conferencing Protocols
  • News & Publications
    • ECSC Media Gallery
    • Annual Reports
    • Appointments
    • Press Releases
    • Papers & Presentation
      • Opening of the Law Year Addresses
    • Tributes
  • E-Litigation
    • E-Litigation Portal
    • E-Litigation Instructional Videos
    • ECSC E-Litigation Portal User Information
    • Electronic Litigation Filing and Service Procedure Rules
    • Notices of Commencement
    • E-Litigation Publications
  • J.E.I
    • JEI History
    • Structure of JEI
    • JEI Chairman
    • Mandate, Objectives, Standards
    • Programmes Archive
      • Conferences
      • Programmes & Projects
      • Symposiums
      • Training
      • Workshops
    • Upcoming Activities
more
    • About Us
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Mediation
    • Careers
  • Contact
  • Saved for Later
 Home  E-Litigation Portal
  •  Court Procedures And Rules
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Court Forms
    • Election Petition Rules
    • Practice Directions
  •  Judgments
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
    •  Digest of Decisions
  •  Sittings
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
  • Sign In
    
    Minimize Search Window
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Category {{SelectedFilters.length}}x Categories 
    •       {{item.title}} {{selectedCountries.length}}x Countries Country 
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Year {{selectedOptions.length}}x Options 
    
    Sorry can't find what you're looking for try adjusting your search terms
    Appeal
    {{doc._source.post_title}}
    Page {{indexVM.page}} of {{indexVM.pageCount}}
    pdf
    Home » Judgments » High Court Judgments » Barrington Telesford v The Attorney General

    Barrington Telesford v The Attorney General
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA
    AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES
    GRENADA
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    CLAIM NO. GDAHCV 20121 0207
    BETWEEN:
    BARRINGTON TELESFORD
    Claimant
    AND
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
    Defendant
    Appearances:
    Ms.Celia Edwards, QC, for the Claimant
    Mr. A. Olowu, for the Defendant
    2013: July 19
    JUDGMENT
    [1] Persad J: The claimant in this matter filed a fixed date claim form on 1st June
    2012 seeking a Declaration that the continued trial of the matter was contrary to
    the Constitution and a breach of section 8 and 2 (e) thereof. The Claimant has
    also sought an order from the High Court quashing an indictment filed against the
    claimant relative to a charge of arson.
    [2] The question that arises in this matter relates to the issue of forum, in
    particular, whether it is necessary for a person charged and indicted for a criminal
    offence before the High Court, to file a constitutional motion in the civil court to
    1
    seek relief under the Constitution relative to his fair trial rights in the matter upon
    which he is already indicted and before the High Court.
    [3] It is necessary to appreciate the factual background to this matter in order to
    understand how the question of forum arises.
    The claimant in these proceedings was charged with unlawfully and intentionally
    setting fire to a dwelling house along with other persons on Saturday 24th of April
    2004.
    [4] A preliminary inquiry was commenced sometime in July 2004 and continued until
    February 2010. On or about 29th March 2010, he was committed to stand trial.
    [5] By 23rd April 2010 the claimant was indicted for the offence of arson. The matter
    came up before the High Court on a number of occasions, without being fixed for
    trial and on or about the 1st June 2012 the claimant filed proceedings before the
    civil court alleging that his right to a fair trial within a reasonable time had been
    infringed.
    [6] As a consequence of the filing of this action, the proceedings before the High
    Court (criminal division) have been adjourned pending determination of the
    constitutional motion.
    [7] This court on being seized with the papers raised the question of whether it was
    necessary and or appropriate for the Claimant in the particular circumstances of
    this case to raise these issues before the civil courts as opposed to raising the
    question of breach of constitutional rights before the trial judge in the criminal
    courts.
    2
    The right to a fair trial within a reasonable time
    [8] Section 8 (1) of the Constitution of Grenada provides that:
    “if any person is charged with a criminal offence, then, unless the charges
    are withdrawn the case shall be afforded a fair hearing within a
    reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by
    law.”
    [9] There can be no doubt that if a person believes that his constitutional rights have
    been infringed or are likely to be infringed, that person is entitled to move the
    High Court for relief. The question that arises in this particular case is whether it is
    necessary and or appropriate, for a person who is charged and already indicted
    before the High Court to then initiate proceedings in the civil jurisdiction for relief.
    [10] The first question that needs to be resolved is whether the trial judge sitting in a
    criminal court is able to deal with constitutional issues that arise in the course of a
    criminal trial. In this particular case, the claimant was seeking appropriate orders
    from the court if the court found that his constitutional rights to have a fair trial
    within a reasonable time had been infringed.
    Can alleged breaches of an individual’s rights under the Constitution be
    determined by the Criminal Trial Court?
    [11] Section 16 of the Constitution of Grenada provides as follows:-
    16 (1) If any person alleges that any of the provisions of sections 2 to 15
    (inclusive) of this Constitution has been, is being or is likely to be
    contravened in relation to him (or, in the case of a person who is detained,
    if any other person alleges such a contravention in relation to the detained
    person), then, without prejudice to any other action with respect to the
    same matter which is lawfully available, that person (or that other person)
    may apply to the High Court for redress.
    3
    (2) The High Court shall have original jurisdiction –
    1. to hear and determine any application made by any
    person in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section;
    and
    2. to determine any question arising in the case of any
    person which is referred to it in pursuance of subsection
    (3) of this section and may make such declarations or
    orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it
    may consider appropriate for the purpose of enforcing or
    securing the enforcement of any of the provisions of
    sections 2 to 15 (inclusive) of this Constitution:
    [12] It is clear from the section cited above that a Judge of the High Court has the
    jurisdiction to deal with matters of constitutional redress. The relevant provisions
    of the Constitution does not seek to distinguish between the High Court in its civil
    or criminal jurisdiction.
    [13] There exist a number of cases that support the proposition that a judge sitting
    in the High Court criminal division is entitled to deal with matters of constitutional
    relief.
    [14] In the case of Allie Mohammed v The State 53 WIR 444, the Judicial Committee
    of the Privy Council had cause to review a judge’s discretion to admit a confession
    statement where defense counsel had suggested that the confession should be
    excluded on the basis that was obtained breach of the applicant’s constitutional
    rights.
    [15] From the case it is clear that the fact that there has been a breach of such
    constitutional right is a cogent factor militating in favour of the exclusion of the
    confession. Nevertheless, although it would generally not be right to admit a
    4
    confession where the police have deliberately frustrated a suspect’s constitutional
    rights, the judge has a discretion as to the admission of the confession statement
    and must perform a balancing exercise in the context of all the circumstances of
    the case.
    [16] In the case of R v Lewis Alexander Case No. 133 of 20061 , Madam Justice
    Clare Henry sitting in the High Court of Grenada, criminal division, had cause to
    declare that section 183A and 183B of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional.
    Similarly, Mr. Justice Belle in Callistus Bernard & 13 others v R Case No. 19/84
    (Resentencing Hearing)2 in the course of his sentencing hearing took into
    consideration breaches of the applicant’s constitutional rights when determining an
    appropriate sentence in that matter.
    [17] The approach of the High Court in Bernard Coard matter is consistent with the
    approach by the Privy Council in the case of Boolell v. The State (Mauritius)
    [2006] UKPC 46 (16th October 2006) where that court has ruled that where an
    individual’s constitutional rights have been infringed the sentencing court would be
    entitled to take that breach into account in fixing an appropriate sentence, in some
    cases imposing a non custodial sentence in appropriate circumstances.
    [18] In the case of R v Flowers 2000 57 WIR 310, the appellant was charged with
    capital murder in April 1991. At his trial in December 1992, the jury disagreed and
    a retrial was ordered. A second trial was held in September and October 1994,
    and the jury again disagreed and a retrial was ordered. At a third trial (in January
    1997) the appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.
    Some of the delay between the first and second trials and between the second
    and third trials was attributable to the delay of defence counsel in requesting the
    transcripts of the aborted proceedings.
    1 Delivered on November 51h 2007
    2 Delivered on 251h July 2007
    5
    [19] The appellant applied for leave to appeal against his conviction in May 1998, and
    his application was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in July 1998. The appellant
    did not submit either at his trial or before the Court of Appeal that his constitutional
    right to a fair trial within a reasonable time (s 20 (1) of the Constitution of Jamaica)
    had been infringed by reason of the delays in the proceedings instituted against
    him, or that the proceedings constituted oppression. Special leave to appeal to
    the Privy Council was granted in February 1999 and the Board heard the appeal in
    July 2000.
    [20] The Privy Council declined to grant relief on the question of delay since neither the
    breach of the appellant’s constitutional right to a fair trial within a reasonable time
    nor his claim that the proceedings were oppressive or an abuse of process had
    been raised in the courts of Jamaica, accordingly the Privy Council was reluctant
    to accede to such a plea raised for the first time before it.
    [21] What is material is that this decision seems to suggest that it was open to the
    applicant to raise the question of a breach of his constitutional right before the trial
    court.
    [22] Having regard to the authorities mentioned above it seems clear that a judge
    sitting in the High Court criminal division is well entitled to resolve breaches of
    constitutional rights relative to the criminal trial process without having to bring
    separate proceedings in the civil courts for constitutional relief.
    Application of principles to this case
    [23] Three reasons may be advanced for the Order that this Court has decided to
    make.
    6
    [24] As a starting principle it seems clear that any individual who wishes to raise an
    issue as to whether his constitutional right to a fair trial within a reasonable time
    has been infringed is entitled to seek relief in the High Court.
    [25] In determining the appropriate forum regard must be had to the stage of the
    proceedings when the decision is made to challenge the constitutionality of the
    process.
    [26] Certainly if the criminal proceedings have not yet come before the High Court
    Assizes, then it would be sensible to initiate any challenge to the constitutionality
    of the process by way of constitutional motion filed in the civil courts.
    [27] Where, however, the criminal proceedings are in existence before the High Court,
    it seems as a matter of common sense that the trial judge has the necessary
    jurisdiction to deal with any constitutional issues that may arise once they relate to
    questions of fair trial.
    [28] Secondly, in the course of the submissions by the parties on this issue, the Court
    enquired of Ms. Edwards, QC, whether in the event that the Court was not minded
    to find in her favour would the Claimant be seeking to make submissions before
    the trial judge and raise common law application for a stay of the indictment on the
    basis of delay.
    [29] Ms. Edwards confirmed that such an application would be made before the
    criminal trial court if this court was not minded to find a constitutional breach. This
    is significant since it is well accepted that a person charged with a criminal
    offence, who has been affected by delay may seek relief under the Constitution,
    under the common law or both.
    [30] Both applications are very different and the considerations that the court will have
    regard to in granting relief will depend on the particular application. Common law
    7
    applications for stays on the basis of delay are applications that are to be
    determined by the trial judge who will in exercising its discretion will have regard to
    the weapons in the trial judge’s arsenal to ensure a fair trial. Different
    considerations apply in an application under the Constitution on the question of
    liability.
    [31] In this particular case the Applicant wishes to assert that his constitutional right to
    a fair trial has been infringed by the inordinate delay in the conduct of the criminal
    proceedings. It would seem that since the Claimant also intends to raise issues
    relative to delay under the common law the best use of judicial resources would be
    achieved by the criminal trial judge considering both applications together.
    [32] Finally, since there seems to be an emerging line of authority that seems to
    suggest that even if the court finds a breach of a constitutional right in cases of
    delay the nature of the remedy may vary in accordance with the gravity of the
    breach. It does not follow that merely because there has been breach of the
    reasonable time requirement that the prosecution must necessarily come to an
    end. In appropriate cases the Court would have to address its mind to the question
    of whether a fair trial can be had. An illuminating analysis on this area of the law
    on this area was recently explored in Gibson v Attorney General of Barbados
    (2010) 76 WIR 137. Accordingly the court may choose to fashion a remedy to
    meet the breach which may fall short of stopping the case.
    [33] Having regard to the reasons outlined above, the court will make the following
    order:
    That the proceedings and issues raised in GDAHC 207/2012 are hereby
    transferred pursuant to this court’s powers under Part 26.1 of the CPR
    to Court NO.1 to be heard and determined by the presiding judge who is
    8
    r rdealing
    with the criminal proceedings involving this Claimant.
    Rajiv Persad
    High Court Judge
    9

    /barrington-telesford-v-attorney-general/
     Prev
    Safiya Shillingford v Roseau City Council
    Next 
    The Queen V Ricardo Alexander
    Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court

    2nd Floor Heraldine Rock Building
    Waterfront
    P.O. Box 1093
    Castries
    Saint Lucia
    T: +1 758 457 3600
    E: offices@eccourts.org

    • About Us
      • Court Overview
      • Career Opportunities
      • Directory
      • Privacy Policy
    • Judgments
      • Court Of Appeal
      • High Court
    • Sittings
      • Chamber Hearing
      • Court of Appeal
      • High Court
    • News & Updates
      • Appointments
      • Press Releases
    • Civil Procedure Rules
      • Court Forms
      • Practice Directions
    © 2023 Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. All Rights Reserved

    Submit your email address and name to subscribe for email notifcations.

    [email-subscribers-advanced-form id="1"]
    Bookmark
    Remove Item
    Sign in to continue
    or

    Bookmarked Items
    •  Home
    • Judgments
    • Sittings
    •  News
    •  more