19980921, House Debates

363 Leave of Absence Monday, September 21, 1998 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, September 21, 1998 The House met at 10.30 a.m. PRAYERS [MR. SPEAKER in the Chair] LEAVE OF ABSENCE Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I wish to advise that continued leave of absence from today’s sitting has been granted to the Member for Port of Spain North/St. Ann's West and the Member for Arouca South. PETITION (DEFERRAL) Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, this item will be deferred until later in the proceedings. CONSTITUTION (AMDT.) BILL Order for second reading read. The Attorney General (Hon. Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, That a bill entitled An Act to amend the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago be now read a second time. Mr. Speaker, this is a most important piece of legislation, in which the legislative arm of the State of Trinidad and Tobago is being requested to take steps to ensure that the implementation of the death penalty, which is a punishment authorized by law, is not frustrated from being carried out. Mr. Speaker, the implementation of the death penalty has been in the forefront of this administration’s policy in respect of the criminal justice system and its reforms. Mr. Speaker, this Bill has become necessary because—although the Privy Council has ruled that a Government which wishes to carry out the death sentence must do so within five years of the date of conviction, and although both the last administration and this administration have accepted and implemented that decision—condemned prisoners have found new ways in which to frustrate the implementation of the death penalty. 364 Constitution (Amdt.) Bill Monday, September 21, 1998 [HON. R. L. MAHARAJ] Mr. Speaker, it is now the law of Trinidad and Tobago—and it has been the law since 1993—that any government which is subject to the jurisdiction of final appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council must, if it wishes to carry out the death penalty, do so swiftly. The Privy Council has given a time-frame: maximum period of five years, for all the appeal processes and applications by condemned persons to be determined in order for the death penalty to be carried out. Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council has ruled that any death sentence which is to be carried out more than five years from the date of the conviction, would be unlawful and unconstitutional; would amount to inhumane and degrading punishment, cruel and unusual treatment, and would be contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, with that principle in mind, when this administration took office, we found that little or nothing was done by the last administration to get the appeal procedures within the five-year time limit. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, because of the inaction of the last administration, because of its incompetence and mal-administration, the last administration was not able to bring the cases that were heard and determined within the five-five period. Mr. Speaker, the records will show that two executions were well known under the last administration. One is Glen Ashby’s, in which the last administration, whilst the applications were pending in the Courts, and whilst the application of the condemned prisoner was pending before the United Nations human rights body—which the Opposition now says it respects and it would like these matters to continue before—carried out the execution. The United Nations Committee and the International Human Rights bodies branded that execution as “extra judicial”. The other matter, which the last administration is well known for, is the matter of “Guerra and Baptiste”. That case will show—even if the matter is within the five-year period, the Privy Council has ruled that if there is inordinate delay in a given period of time, whether it is in the appeal process or before the Human Rights body—the Privy Council can still rule that to carry out the death sentence was unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker, in the matter of Guerra and Baptiste, the execution was attempted to be carried out within five years, but there was a delay of almost four years in the Court of Appeal process, and the Privy Council ruled that, although it is within five years, the rule was not flexible and therefore the death penalty could not be carried out. 365 Constitution (Amdt.) Bill Monday, September 21, 1998 Mr. Speaker, this administration took administrative measures to ensure that the cases were expedited and to facilitate the expedition of the cases. And this Bill is really about preventing condemned prisoners who are going to be executed within the five-year period from using the court procedures to frustrate the carrying out of the death sentence. Mr. Speaker, the main objective of this Bill is to prevent persons who are convicted of murder and sentenced to death from using repeated and unjustified collateral attacks against their convictions and sentences; designed to delay the execution for so long a period of time that it would be unlawful to carry out the death sentence. Mr. Speaker, the Bill would prevent condemned prisoners from using grounds such as: “the nature and conditions of their confinement in prison”; “the need for their applications to be determined before two human rights bodies: The United Nation’s Committee on Human Rights and the Inter- American Commission on Human Rights”; and “the fact that there was delay before their trial and conviction”. 10.40 a.m. Mr. Speaker, the Bill would prevent condemned prisoners on death row from using the individual application procedures before the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to promote delays so that their cases can exceed the time-frame laid down by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for the determination of their applications. The current decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council make it unconstitutional and unlawful for a government, which is subject to its jurisdiction, to carry out the death sentence upon a convicted person after more than five years of the date on which he was convicted of murder. However, the Privy Council went on to give certain targets which governments should aim to meet and which, if they are met, can raise no questions of the execution being unlawful or unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decided that the Court of Appeal must aim to complete the appeal process within one year and the Privy Council to aim to complete it within a further year. It also decided that it should be possible for the two human rights bodies, that is the Inter-American 366 Constitution (Amdt.) Bill Monday, September 21, 1998 [HON. R. L. MAHARAJ] Commission on Human Rights and the United Nations Committee on Human Rights, to dispose of the application before them, at most, within 18 months. So, the Privy Council was saying that although the rule is five years that is not an inflexible rule, but that if a government—such as Trinidad and Tobago in which there are two bodies—can carry out the execution within three and a half years—in other words if an appeal in this process can be completed within three and a half years—there can be no basis for the courts holding that the death sentence was unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council made it clear in its judgment that states wishing to retain the death penalty must accept the responsibility of ensuring that execution followed as swiftly as practicable after sentence was passed, allowing a reasonable time for appeal and consideration of mercy. Mr. Speaker, the Privy Council decided that in any case in which the death sentence was to be carried out more than five years after the sentence of death was passed upon the prisoner, there would be strong grounds for believing that the delay was such as to constitute unconstitutional action, inhumane or degrading punishment. The Privy Council, in its decision, found that the aim of the timetable was not rigid and it stated that it considered that the targets were realistic and, if achieved, could not be considered to involve inhumane, degrading or unconstitutional punishment or treatment. That is important, because the Privy Council was saying that although the time limit was five years, if you are doing it within three and a half years the death sentence ought not to be held to be unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker, with that in mind, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, when it took office, decided to introduce a number of measures. Those measures were mentioned in the Status Report on the Implementation of the Death Penalty which was laid in Parliament, and included the setting up of a case management unit to monitor these cases; providing resources to the judiciary and this Government decided to do that in order to ensure that the death sentence was carried out within the five years but aiming, as the Privy Council said, to be carried out within three and a half years. Based on what steps we took, the recent events in which death warrants have been read to seven prisoners, showed that those matters are all within the period of three and a half years. Mr. Speaker, in order to keep the matters within the three and a half years—I would like to re-emphasize the matter of Guerra and Baptiste because they 367 Constitution (Amdt.) Bill Monday, September 21, 1998 showed that if there is inordinate delay within the five years, and if, for example, the judgment or reasons of the court is not given for an unreasonable length of time the Privy Council has ruled that it can make a finding that it was unconstitutional.

Load more