We have represented prisoners under sentence of death in the Caribbean in a number of landmark criminal and constitutional cases. For a full list of all cases that we have handled since 1991, please click here.  The jurisprudence created has resulted in large sections of the domestic law being brought into conformity with international human rights standards on the death penalty. A selection of the cases and issues determined are detailed below.  To see a full list of cases, please click here.

The Bahamas

Country Profile:

The Bahamas retains the death penalty for ordinary crimes including murder, treason and piracy, and voted against both the 2007 and 2008 UN General Assembly Resolutions on the adoption of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty.  In 2007 and 2008, the Bahamas imposed a number of death sentences however, the exact figure is unknown. In 2009, the Bahamas handed down 2 death sentences, although no executions were carried out. 
Although the Bahamas has been a party to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) since 2008, it has neither signed nor ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (1989), nor has it signed or ratified the American Convention on Human Rights and its Protocol to Abolish the Death Penalty (1990).

The Death Penalty Project has worked on the following cases:

• Atain Takitota –v- The Attorney General & Others (Bahamas) [2009] UKPC 11

Whilst not a death penalty case, we agreed to represent Mr Takitota in his appeal to the Privy Council seeking compensatory damages for his unlawful detention and breach of his constitutional rights. Mr Takitota had been detained in the Bahamas for approximately eight years.  He was never charged with any offence nor brought before a court during the whole of that period. It had been accepted that Mr Takitota had been detained in appalling prison conditions and as a result had attempted to commit suicide several times.  In the judgment of the Privy Council, the sum of compensation awarded was not considered adequate and the case was remitted back to the Court of Appeal of the Bahamas to reconsider the appropriate sum to adequately reflect the long period (over eight years) of unlawful detention taking into account the inhumane conditions and the misery and distress suffered by the Appellant.  As well as seeking redress for Mr Takitota the case has been important in highlighting the risk of severe miscarriages of justice occurring and the possibility of abuse by the Executive to individuals within the criminal justice system. 

• Bowe & Davis -v- The Queen (The Bahamas) [2006] UKPC 10

The Privy Council decision struck down the mandatory death sentence imposed on those convicted of murder in the Bahamas, as being in breach of the Constitution. In a judgment delivered by Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the Privy Council took the view that as early as 1973, the mandatory death penalty should have been regarded as an inhuman and degrading punishment.

Belize

Latest News:

Earlier this year, Belize enacted the Caribbean Court of Justice Act 2010 and the Constitutional (Seventh Amendment) Act, abolishing the jurisdiction of the Privy Council in order to replace it with the jurisdiction of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), seated in Trinidad.  The CCJ will replace the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the final Court of Appeal in all civil and criminal matters for Belize.
Transitional provisions will allow for pending appeals (i.e. where permission to appeal has already been granted) before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to be completed after the commencement date, which is the 1st of June 2010. We will however, continue to assist in appeals to the CCJ for prisoners on death row and other prisoners where there is evidence of a miscarriage of justice.

Country Profile:

Whilst Belize retains the death penalty for murder and military offences, it is considered to be a de facto abolitionist state, as it has not carried out an execution since 1985.  In 2009, Belize did not hand down any death sentences. However, Belize voted against both the 2007 and 2008 UN General Assembly Resolutions on the adoption of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Although Belize has been a party to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) since 1996, it has neither signed nor ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (1989), nor has it signed or ratified the American Convention on Human Rights and its Protocol to Abolish the Death Penalty (1990).

The Death Penalty Project has worked on the following cases:

• Eiley, Savery and Polonio v the Queen (Belize) [2009] UKPC 39

On 4th November 2009, five years after being convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, the Privy Council quashed the sentences of Francis Eiley, Ernest Savery, and Lenton Polonio.  They had been convicted solely on the uncorroborated evidence of one man (Vasquez) who had been apprehended at the scene of the murder, bloodstained, and who was initially charged with the murder. In return for giving evidence at the trial, Vasquez was promised immunity from prosecution by the Director of Public Prosecutions.  The Privy Council considered the convictions of the three appellants to be unsafe having regard to the nature of the evidence and the fact that Vasquez had been caught “literally red-handed at the scene” and was therefore “a prime suspect”.  In their judgment, the Board held that the decision by the prosecution to offer Vasquez immunity was “surprising” and “his evidence had features that were unsatisfactory and suggested that his primary concern was to distance himself from involvement in the murder.” The Court was of the opinion that it was not able to dismiss the possibility that on the morning after the murder, Mr. Vasquez simply pointed to the first group of men that he saw after indicating to the police that he would take them to those who were involved in the crime. The Privy Council therefore found the convictions to be unsafe and quashed the sentences of life imprisonment.

• Pipersburgh & Robateau -v- The Queen (Belize) [2008] UKPC 11.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council declared their convictions unsafe as the trial judge had failed to direct the jury to take care with dock identification evidence; furthermore, the JCPC emphasised the need to obtain social enquiry and psychiatric reports for every prisoner being considered for a death sentence. 

• Reyes -v- The Queen (Belize) [2002] 2 AC 235

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council acknowledged the inhumanity of the mandatory death penalty in Belize.

• Codrington -v- The Queen (Belize) [1996] PC Appeal No 23 of 1995

This case established minimum requirements for competent legal representation and basic requirements of due process in capital cases.

Jamaica

Country Profile:

Jamaica retains the death penalty for murder. Jamaica voted against the 2007 and 2008 UN General Assembly Resolutions on the adoption of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty.  Jamaica handed down at least one (reported) death sentence in 2008, however, the exact figure is unknown.  In 2009, 2 death sentences were imposed, however no executions were carried out.  Although Jamaica has been a party to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) since 1975, it has neither signed nor ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (1989). Jamaica is also a party to the American Convention on Human Rights, but has not signed or ratified its Protocol to Abolish the Death Penalty (1990).

The Death Penalty Project has worked on the following cases:

• Pratt & Morgan -v- The Attorney General of Jamaica [1994] 2 AC 1

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council acknowledged that excessive delay on death row amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment.

• Lewis -v- The Attorney General of Jamaica [2001] 2 AC 50

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council established that procedural fairness and natural justice are fundamental requirements in proceedings before mercy committees, and that it would be unlawful to execute condemned prisoners without regard to decisions of international human rights bodies.

St Christopher and Nevis

Country Profile:

St Christopher and Nevis retains the death penalty for murder, and voted against both the 2007 and 2008 UN General Assembly Resolutions on the adoption of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty.  St Christopher and Nevis handed down at least one death sentence during the period of 2008, however, the exact figure is unknown.  No death sentences or executions were reported in 2009.  St Christopher and Nevis is not a party to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (1989), the American Convention on Human Rights or its Protocol to Abolish the Death Penalty (1990).

The Death Penalty Project has worked on the following cases:

• Fox -v- The Queen (St Christopher & Nevis) [2002] 2 AC 284

In this case, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council endorsed the Judgment of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal in the case of Spence & Hughes -v- The Queen (St Vincent and the Grenadines and St Lucia) [2001], which was the first successful challenge to the inhumanity of the mandatory death penalty in the Commonwealth Caribbean.

St Lucia

Country Profile:

St Lucia retains the death penalty for murder and treason, and voted against the 2007 and 2008 UN General Assembly Resolutions on the adoption of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty.  There were no reported death sentences or executions in 2007, 2008 or 2009.
St Lucia is not a party to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (1989), or the American Convention on Human Rights or its Protocol to Abolish the Death Penalty (1990).

The Death Penalty Project has worked on the following cases:

• The Queen -v- Hughes (St Lucia) [2002] 2 AC 259

This case endorsed the Judgment of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal in the case of Spence & Hughes -v- The Queen (St Vincent and the Grenadines and St Lucia) [2001], which was the first successful challenge to the inhumanity of the mandatory death penalty in the Commonwealth Caribbean.

St Vincent and the Grenadines

Country Profile:

St Vincent and the Grenadines retains the death penalty for murder and treason, although it has not carried out an execution since 1995, and is therefore considered to be de facto abolitionist. St Vincent and the Grenadines voted against the 2007 and 2008 UN General Assembly Resolutions on the adoption of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty.  In 2008, St Vincent and the Grenadines imposed at least one death sentence. In 2009, no death sentences were imposed.
Although St Vincent and the Grenadines has been a party to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) since 1981, it has neither signed nor ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (1989), nor has it signed or ratified the American Convention on Human Rights and its Protocol to Abolish the Death Penalty (1990).

The Death Penalty Project has worked on the following cases:

• Spence & Hughes -v- The Queen (St Vincent and the Grenadines and St Lucia) [2001]

Judgment of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal. This was the first successful challenge to the inhumanity of the mandatory death penalty in the Commonwealth Caribbean. It was later endorsed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the related appeals of The Queen -v- Hughes (St Lucia) [2002] 2 AC 259, and Fox -v- The Queen (St Christopher & Nevis) [2002] 2 AC 284.

• Daniel Dick Trimmingham –v- The State (St Vincent & The Grenadines) [2009] UKPC 25.

The Privy Council allowed the appeal on sentence on the basis that the murder fell short of being the ‘worst of the worst’ so as to justify capital punishment. The Court also emphasised that the object of keeping the petitioner out of society permanently can be achieved without executing him.

Trinidad and Tobago

Country Profile:

Trinidad and Tobago retains the death penalty for murder and treason. Trinidad and Tobago voted against the 2007 and 2008 UN General Assembly Resolutions on the adoption of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty.  In 2008, Trinidad and Tobago imposed 10 death sentences, and a further 11 death sentences were imposed in 2009. Although Trinidad and Tobago has been a party to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) since 1978, it has neither signed nor ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (1989). It is also a party to the American Convention on Human Rights, but has not signed or ratified its Protocol to Abolish the Death Penalty (1990).

The Death Penalty Project has worked on the following cases:

• Pitman -v- The State (Trinidad & Tobago) [2008] UKPC 16

The Privy Council allowed Lester Pitman's appeal on the basis of psychiatric evidence about his mental state which may cast doubt on the safety of his conviction for murder and the legality of the sentence of death. The case was remitted back to the Court of Appeal and was heard in July 2009, where Professor Michael Kopelman and Dr Jessica Bramham appeared to give evidence on behalf of Mr Pitman.

• Roodal -v- The State (Trinidad & Tobago) [2004] 2 WLR 652

This was a successful challenge to the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty in Trinidad & Tobago. Although later overturned in Matthew -v- The State (Trinidad & Tobago) [2004] 64 WLR 412, the litigation resulted in the commutation of the sentences of all prisoners (86 persons) under sentence of death in Trinidad & Tobago.

• Boodram -v- The State (Trinidad & Tobago) [2002] 1 Cr App R 12

This case established minimum requirements for competent legal representation and basic requirements of due process in capital cases.

• Sankar -v- The State (Trinidad & Tobago) [1995] 1 WLR 194

This case established minimum requirements for competent legal representation and basic requirements of due process in capital cases.