Formally a statutory committee of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, the Judicial Committee consists of senior judges who are Privy Councillors; they are predominantly justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and senior judges from the Commonwealth of Nations. Although it is often simply referred to as the "Privy Council", the Judicial Committee is only one constituent part of the Council. In Commonwealth realms, appeals are nominally made to "His Majesty in Council" (i.e. the British monarch as formally advised by his privy counsellors), who then refers the case to the Judicial Committee for "advice", while in republics in the Commonwealth of Nations retaining the JCPC as their final court of appeal, appeals are made directly to the Judicial Committee itself. The panel of judges (typically five in number) hearing a particular case is known as "the Board". The report of the Board is, by convention, always accepted by the King-in-Council as judgment.
Court 3 in Middlesex Guildhall, the normal location for Privy Council hearings.
History
The origins of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council can be traced back to the curia regis, or royal council. In theory, the King was the fount of justice, and petitions for redress of wrongs arising from his courts were addressed to him. That power was gradually taken over by Parliament (which evolved out of the curia regis) within England, but the King-in-Council (which also evolved out of the curia regis) retained jurisdiction to hear petitions from the King's non-English possessions, such as the Channel Islands and, later on, from England's colonies.[3]
The task of hearing appeals was given to a series of short-lived committees of the Privy Council. In 1679, appellate jurisdiction was given to the Board of Trade, before being transferred to a standing Appeals Committee of the Privy Council in 1696.[5] The Appeals Committee of the Privy Council was one of the earliest judicial bodies which exercised the power of judicial review, in a series of cases from the American colonies which raised questions about the constitutionality of colonial statutes, measured against the royal charters which set out the powers of the colonial governments.[6][7]
By the early nineteenth century, the growth of the British Empire, which had greatly expanded the appellate jurisdiction of the Privy Council (despite the loss of appeals from the American colonies), had put great strains on the existing arrangements.[5] In particular, the Appeals Committee had to hear cases arising from a variety of different legal systems in the colonies, such as Hindu law, with which its members were unfamiliar.[5] Another serious problem was that the Appeals Committee was technically a committee of the whole of the entire Privy Council, of which a minimum of three were required for a quorum.[5] Since many members of the Privy Council were not lawyers, all members of the Appeals Committee had equal votes, and there was no requirement that any of the Privy Counsellors actually hearing a particular appeal had to be a lawyer, it became possible for certain parties to appeal to secure desired judgments by persuading nonlawyer Privy Counsellors to attend the hearings on their appeals.[5] For these reasons, the Appeals Committee fell into disrepute among better-informed lawyers and judges in the colonies.[5]
In 1833, at the instigation of Lord Brougham, the Lord Chancellor, Parliament passed the Judicial Committee Act 1833. The Act established the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, a statutory committee of the Privy Council that would hear appeals to the King-in-Council. In addition to colonial appeals, later legislation gave the Judicial Committee appellate jurisdiction over a range of miscellaneous matters, such as patents, ecclesiastical matters, and prize suits.[3] At its height, the Judicial Committee was said to be the court of final appeal for over a quarter of the world.
In the twentieth century, the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council shrank considerably, as British dominions established their own courts of final appeal and as British colonies became independent, although many retained appeals to the Privy Council post-independence. Canada abolished Privy Council appeals in 1949, India and South Africa in 1950, Australia in 1986, and New Zealand in 2003. Currently, eleven Commonwealth countries outside of the United Kingdom retain Privy Council appeals, in addition to various British and New Zealand territories. The Judicial Committee also retains jurisdiction over a small number of domestic matters in the United Kingdom, reduced by the creation of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in 2009.
The United Kingdom does not have a single highest national court; the Judicial Committee is the highest court of appeal in some cases, while in most others the highest court of appeal is the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. (In Scotland the highest court in criminal cases is the High Court of Justiciary; the Supreme Court is the highest court in civil cases and matters arising from Scottish devolution, the latter previously having been dealt with by the Judicial Committee.)
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has jurisdiction in the following domestic matters:
Additionally, the government may (through the King) refer any issue to the committee for "consideration and report" under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833.
Authority of Privy Council decisions in domestic British courts
Judgments of the Judicial Committee are not generally binding on courts within the United Kingdom, having only persuasive authority, but are binding on all courts within any other Commonwealth country which still allows for appeals to the Judicial Committee. Where a binding precedent of the UK Supreme Court, or of the House of Lords, or of the Court of Appeal conflicts with that of a decision of the Judicial Committee on English law, English courts are required to follow the domestic decision over that of the Judicial Committee except when the Judicial Committee has in its decision expressly directed the domestic court to follow its new decision.[10] However, given the overlap between the membership of the Judicial Committee and of the Supreme Court, the decisions of the former are extremely persuasive and usually followed.[11]
Overseas jurisdiction
The Judicial Committee holds jurisdiction in appeals from the following 32 jurisdictions (including eleven independent nations):
Appeal is to the Sultan as head of state; only civil cases are under the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee.[9](By agreement with the United Kingdom the Judicial Committee hears cases in which such an appeal has been made, and reports back to him.)[12]
Appeal is directly made to the Judicial Committee; only cases involving certain constitutional rights of Banabans and/or the Rabi Council are under the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee.[9]
Jurisdiction removed
Judicial appeal of final resort has been assumed by other bodies in some current and former Commonwealth countries:
Judges of certain superior courts in Commonwealth nations, who are appointed Privy Counsellors for the purpose of sitting in the JCPC
The bulk of the Committee's work is done by the Supreme Court Justices, who are paid to work full-time in both the Supreme Court and the Privy Council. Overseas judges may not sit when certain UK domestic matters are being heard, but will often sit when appeals from their own countries are being heard.
Until 1904 the Registrar of the Admiralty court was also Registrar to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in ecclesiastical and maritime causes.[39]
Procedure
Most appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are formally appeals to "His Majesty in Council". Appeals from Brunei are formally to the Sultan and Yang di-Pertuan, while appeals from republics within the Commonwealth are directly to the Judicial Committee. Appeals are generally by leave of the local Court of Appeal, although the Judicial Committee retains discretionary power to grant leave to appeal as well.
After hearing an appeal, the panel of judges which heard the case (known as "the Board") issues its decision in writing. For appeals to His Majesty in Council, the Board submits its decision to the King as advice for his consideration. By convention, the advice is always accepted by the King and given effect via an Order in Council.
Historically, the Judicial Committee could only give a unanimous report, but since the Judicial Committee (Dissenting Opinions) Order 1966, dissenting opinions have been allowed.
The Judicial Committee is not bound by its own previous decisions, but may depart from them in exceptional circumstances if following its previous decisions would be unjust or contrary to public policy.[40]
Location
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is based in London. From its establishment to 2009, it mainly met in the Privy Council Chamber in Downing Street, although increase in the Judicial Committee's business in the twentieth century required it to sit simultaneously in several panels, which met elsewhere. The Chamber, designed by John Soane, was often criticised for its interior design, and was extensively remodelled in 1845 by Sir Charles Barry.[3] On 1 October 2009, the Judicial Committee moved to the former Middlesex Guildhall building, which had been refurbished in 2007 to provide a home for both the JCPC and the newly created Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. In this renovated building, Court 3 is used for Privy Council sittings.
In recent years, the Judicial Committee has occasionally sat outside of London. Between 2005 and 2010 it sat twice in Mauritius and three times in the Bahamas.
Decline in Commonwealth appeals
Initially, all Commonwealth realms and their territories maintained a right of appeal to the Privy Council. Many of those Commonwealth countries that became republics, or which had indigenous monarchies, preserved the Judicial Committee's jurisdiction by agreement with the United Kingdom. However, retention of a right of appeal to a court located overseas, made up mostly of British judges who may be out of tune with local values, has often come to be seen as incompatible with notions of an independent nation's sovereign status, and so a number of Commonwealth members have ended the right of appeal from their jurisdiction. The Balfour Declaration of 1926, while not considered to be lex scripta, severely limited the conditions under which the Judicial Committee might hear cases:[41]
From these discussions it was clear that it was no part of the policy of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain that questions affecting judicial appeals should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the wishes of the part of the Empire primarily affected
Australia
In 1901, the Constitution of Australia limited appeals from the new federal High Court of Australia to the Privy Council, by prohibiting appeals on constitutional matters unless leave is granted by the High Court on inter se questions. Appeals on non-constitutional matters were not prohibited, but the federal Parliament of Australia had the power to legislate to limit them. The right of appeal from federal courts (including territory supreme courts) was abolished through the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968.[42][43] Appeals from state courts, a continuation of the right to appeal decisions of colonial courts before 1901, continued, until they were also abolished by the Australia Act 1986, which was enacted by both the UK and Australian parliaments, on the request of all the state governments. The Australian Constitution retains the provision allowing the High Court of Australia to permit appeals to the Privy Council on inter se questions. However, the only time such permission was given was in 1912[44] and the High Court has stated that it will not grant it again, since the jurisdiction to do so "has long since been spent", and it is obsolete.[45]
Canada created its own Supreme Court in 1875 and abolished appeals to the Privy Council in criminal cases in 1933.[46] Despite this, some decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada went on to appeal in the JCPC, including notably the Persons Case (Edwards v Canada (AG)), which affirmed that women had always been "qualified persons" under the British North America Act, 1867 (Canada's Constitution) eligible to sit in the Senate of Canada. In this case, it also used a metaphor in the obiter dicta, later reinterpreted and employed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1980s to establish what came to be known as the "living tree doctrine" in Canadian Constitutional law, which says that a constitution is organic and must be read in a broad and liberal manner so as to adapt it to changing times.
In 1949, all appeals to the Privy Council were abolished, but prior to this, there were several factors that served to limit the effectiveness of measures to reduce appeals:
Appeals of rulings from the various provincial courts of appeal could still be made directly to the Privy Council, without first going to the Supreme Court of Canada.
In Cushing v. Dupuy (1885),[47] the Privy Council held that the ability to grant special leave to appeal to the Privy Council was unaffected, as the prerogative of the Crown cannot be taken away except by express words.
... autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
With that Declaration and its statutory confirmation in the Statute of Westminster 1931 (Imp, 22–23 Geo 5, c.4)[49] the impediment to abolishing appeals to the Privy Council, whether or not it had been legitimate, was comprehensively removed. Criminal appeals to the Privy Council were ended in 1933. Moves to extend the abolition to civil matters were shelved during the growing international crisis of the 1930s but re-tabled after the Second World War, and civil appeals ended in 1949, with an amendment of the Supreme Court Act.[50] Cases begun before 1949 were still allowed to appeal after 1949, and the final case to make it to the Council was not until 1959 with the case of Ponoka-Calmar Oils v Wakefield.[51]
The JCPC played a controversial role in the evolution of Canadian federalism in that, whereas some Fathers of Confederation in negotiating the union of the British North American colonies against the backdrop of the American Civil War wished to ensure a strong central government vis-à-vis relatively weak provinces, appeals to the JCPC in constitutional matters progressively shifted the balance in favour of the provinces.[52] While a few commentators have suggested that Canadian First Nations retain the right to appeal to the Privy Council because their treaties predate their relationship to Canada, the JCPC has not entertained any such appeal since 1867 and the dominant view is that no such appeal right exists.[53]
Caribbean Community
The nations of the Caribbean Community voted in 2001 to abolish the right of appeal to the Privy Council in favour of a Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). Some debate between member countries and also the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council[54][55] had repeatedly delayed the court's date of inauguration. As of 2005, Barbados replaced the process of appeals to Her Majesty in Council with the CCJ, which had then come into operation. The Co-operative Republic of Guyana also enacted local legislation allowing the CCJ to have jurisdiction over their sovereign final court of appeals system. Belize acceded to the Appellate Jurisdiction of the CCJ on 1 June 2010. As it stands, a few other CARICOM states appear to be ready for the abolition of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the immediate future. The government of Jamaica in particular had come close and attempted to abolish appeals to the Judicial Committee without the support of the opposition in Parliament; however, it was ruled by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that the procedure used in Jamaica to bypass the opposition was incorrect and unconstitutional.[56] Another attempt will also be forthcoming.[57]
Caribbean governments have been coming under increased pressure from their electorates[58] to devise ways to override previous rulings by the JCPC such as Pratt v A-G (Jamaica, 1993),[59]R v Hughes (Saint Lucia, 2002), Fox v R (Saint Kitts and Nevis, 2002), Reyes v R (2002, Belize), Boyce v R (Barbados, 2004), and Matthew v S (Trinidad and Tobago, 2004), all of which are Privy Council judgments concerning the death penalty in the Caribbean region.[60][61][62]
On 18 December 2006, the Judicial Committee made history when for the first time in more than 170 years it ventured outside London, holding a five-day sitting in the Bahamas. Lords Bingham, Brown, Carswell, and Scott, and Baroness Hale of Richmond, travelled to the Bahamas for the special sitting at the invitation of Dame Joan Sawyer, then the President of the Court of Appeal of the Bahamas;[64] the Committee returned to the Bahamas in December 2007 for a second sitting. On the latter occasion, Lords Hope, Rodger, Walker, and Mance, and Sir Christopher Rose, heard several cases. At the end of the sitting, Lord Hope indicated that there may be future sittings of the Committee in the Bahamas,[65] and the Committee has indeed sat in the Bahamas again, in 2009.[66]
On 28 February 2023, the parliament of Saint Lucia approved the Constitution of St Lucia Amendment Bill 2023, which would replace the JCPC with the CCJ.[67]
An injunction against Saint Lucia's accession to the CCJ was filed on 3 March 2023 against the bill in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in the High Court of Justice of Saint Lucia, and is currently pending.[68]
Sri Lanka (Ceylon)
Sri Lanka, formerly Ceylon, abolished appeals to the Privy Council under the Court of Appeal Act, 1971, which came into effect on 15 November 1971.[69] Previously, the Privy Council had ruled in Ibralebbe v The Queen that it remained the highest court of appeal in Ceylon notwithstanding the country's independence as a dominion in 1948.[70]
Grenadian appeals to the Privy Council were temporarily abolished from 1979 until 1991, as a result of the Grenadian Revolution, which brought Prime Minister Maurice Bishop to power. People's Law 84 was enacted to this effect. In 1985, Mitchell v DPP affirmed Grenada's right to unilaterally abolish appeals to the Privy Council. In 1991, Grenada restored the JCPC's jurisdiction.
In 2016, there was a proposal in the 2016 Grenadian constitutional referendum to terminate appeals from Grenada to the JCPC and to replace the JCPC with the Caribbean Court of Justice. This was rejected by a 56.73% majority, which means the JCPC remains Grenada's highest court.
Guyana retained the right of appeal to the Privy Council until the government of Prime Minister Forbes Burnham passed the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (Termination of Appeals) Act 1970 and the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1973.
Decisions of the Privy Council on Hong Kong appeals before 1 July 1997 remain binding on the courts of Hong Kong. This accords with the principle of continuity of the legal system enshrined in Article 8 of the Basic Law. Decisions of the Privy Council on non-Hong Kong appeals are of persuasive authority only. Such decisions were not binding on the courts in Hong Kong under the doctrine of precedent before 1 July 1997 and are not binding today. Decisions of the House of Lords before 1 July 1997 stand in a similar position. It is of the greatest importance that the courts of Hong Kong should derive assistance from overseas jurisprudence, particularly from the final appellate courts of other common law jurisdictions. This is recognised by Article 84 of the Basic Law.[72][73]
Pursuant to Article 158 of the Basic Law, the power of final interpretation of the Basic Law is vested not in the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong but in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of China, which, unlike the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, is a political body rather than an independent and impartial tribunal of last resort.
India
India retained the right of appeal from the Federal Court of India to the Privy Council after the establishment of the Dominion of India. Following the replacement of the Federal Court with the Supreme Court of India in January 1950, the Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act 1949 came into effect, ending the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
In May 2015, the Jamaican House of Representatives approved, with the necessary two-thirds majority, bills to end legal appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and make the Caribbean Court of Justice Jamaica's final court of appeal. The reform will be debated by the Jamaican Senate; however, the government needed the support of at least one opposition Senator for the measures to be approved by the required two-thirds majority.[77][78] The 2016 general election was called before the reforms could be brought to the Senate for a final vote. The Jamaican Labour Party, which opposed the changes, won the election and has promised to hold a referendum on the issue.[79][needs update]
Malaysia
Malaysia abolished appeals to the Privy Council in criminal and constitutional matters in 1978,[80] and in civil matters in 1984.[81]
New Zealand
New Zealand was the last of the original dominions to remove appeals to the Privy Council from its legal system. Proposals to abolish appeals to the Privy Council in New Zealand were first put forward in the early 1980s.[82]
The Privy Council's respect for local decisions was noted by Lord Brightman in 1985 in regard to the possible adoption of a New Zealand decision, in the case of Archer v. Cutler (1980), as a precedent, where he stated that:
If Archer v. Cutler is properly to be regarded as a decision based on considerations peculiar to New Zealand, it is highly improbable that their Lordships would think it right to impose their own interpretation of the law, thereby contradicting the unanimous conclusions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal of New Zealand on a matter of local significance. If, however, the principle of Archer v. Cutler, if it be correct, must be regarded as having general application throughout all jurisdictions based on the common law, because it does not depend on local considerations, their Lordships could not properly treat the unanimous view of the courts of New Zealand as being necessarily decisive.[83]
In October 2003, with respect to all cases heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, New Zealand law was changed to abolish appeals to the Privy Council, after the end of 2003. The old system was replaced by the Supreme Court of New Zealand. In 2008, Prime Minister John Key ruled out any abolition of the Supreme Court and return to the Privy Council.[84]
However, judgment on the last appeal from New Zealand to be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was not delivered until 3 March 2015.[85][86][87]
Newfoundland was one of the original Dominions, recognised in the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster 1931. Like the other Dominions, an appeal lay from the Newfoundland courts to the Judicial Committee.
In 1949, Newfoundland joined Canada as the tenth province. Like other provinces, an appeal continued to lie from the Newfoundland courts to the Judicial Committee. In late 1949, the federal Parliament abolished appeals to the Judicial Committee from courts in Canada, making the Supreme Court of Canada the final court of appeal. Cases started prior to the abolition could still be appealed to the Judicial Committee, but it does not appear that there were any cases from Newfoundland to the Judicial Committee after 1949.
Singapore abolished Privy Council appeals in all cases save those involving the death penalty, or in civil cases where the parties had agreed to such a right of appeal, in 1989. The remaining rights of appeal were abolished in April 1994.
One notable case in Singapore where an appeal against the death sentence was allowed by the Privy Council was a murder case that occurred in Pulau Ubin between 22 and 23 April 1972. In this case, Mohamed Yasin bin Hussein, who was 19 at the time of the murder, was sentenced to death by the High Court for murdering and raping a 58-year-old woman named Poon Sai Imm, while his 25-year-old accomplice Harun bin Ripin went to ransack the elderly woman's house for items to rob (Harun, who also stood trial for murder together with Yasin, was instead sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment and received 12 strokes of the cane for a lesser charge of robbery at night). The Privy Council found that there was no evidence to show that Yasin had intended to cause death or any fatal bodily injury when he caused the fatal rib fractures on Poon while raping the struggling victim. As such, they found him guilty of committing a rash/negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. Following this appeal, Yasin was brought back to court to be charged with rape, and he was eventually jailed for another eight years for attempted rape of the victim.[88]
Another notable case heard by the Privy Council was the case of Haw Tua Tau, a hawker who was sentenced to death in 1978 for the double murder of two hawkers Phoon Ah Leong and his mother Hu Yuen Keng.[89] After his appeal was dismissed,[90] Haw was granted special leave to appeal to the Privy Council against his sentence and conviction, but his appeal was dismissed by the Privy Council, which issued a landmark ruling that decreed the prosecution shall be allowed to present its case against an accused in court, as long as there is sufficient evidence to back a charge against the accused and hence present a case for the accused to answer.[91] After losing his final appeal, Haw was eventually hanged in 1982 for the hawker killings.[92]
1 2 3 4 P. A. Howell, The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 1833–1876: Its Origins, Structure, and Development, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1979
↑ "Practice direction 1". The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Retrieved 8 January 2024.
↑ An Act to amend the Criminal Code, S.C. 1932–33, c. 53, s. 17.
↑ Feingold, Ellen R. (2018). Colonial Justice and Decolonization in the High Court of Tanzania, 1920–1971. Palgrave MacMillan. pp.146, 161. ISBN978-3-319-69690-4.
↑ Poulter, Sebastian (November 1977). "No.8: Dual Marriages in Lesotho"(PDF). National University of Lesotho, Faculty of Social Sciences, Staff Seminar Papers: 3. Retrieved 17 April 2018.
↑ Pain, JH (July 1978). "The reception of English and Roman-Dutch law in Africa with reference to Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland". The Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa. 11: 166.
↑ Ponoka-Calmar Oils Ltd. and another v Earl F. Wakefield Co. And others[1959] UKPC 20, [1960] AC 18(7 October 1959), P.C.(on appeal from Canada)
↑ Hogg, Peter W. Constitutional Law of Canada, 4th ed. Toronto: Carswell, 2003, ss. 5.3(a)–(c); 2004 Student Edition Abridgment, ss. 5.3(a)–(c), pp. 117–120
↑ Bruce Clark (1990). Native Liberty, Crown Sovereignty. McGill-Queen's University Press. ISBN9780773507678.[pageneeded]
Canadian federalism involves the current nature and historical development of the federal system in Canada.
In Canadian law, a reference question or reference case is a submission by the federal or a provincial government to the courts asking for an advisory opinion on a major legal issue. Typically the question concerns the constitutionality of legislation.
The Caribbean Court of Justice is the judicial institution of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Established in 2005, it is based in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.
The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC) is a superior court of record for the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), including six independent states: Antigua and Barbuda, the Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and three British Overseas Territories. It has unlimited jurisdiction in each member State.
In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal, and court of final appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are binding on all other courts in a nation and are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts. A supreme court can also, in certain circumstances, act as a court of original jurisdiction.
Anand Ramlogan is a member of the Bar of Trinidad and Tobago, England & Wales and the British Virgin Islands. He is the founder and head of Freedom Law Chambers which is based in the city of San Fernando, Trinidad. He served as junior counsel to the late Sir Fenton Ramsahoye QC in whose footsteps he followed to become the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago during the period 28 May 2010 – 2 February 2015. As Attorney General, he was also the titular head of the bar.
The judiciary of Jamaica is based on the judiciary of the United Kingdom. The courts are organized at four levels, with additional provision for appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. The Court of Appeal is the highest appellate court. The Supreme Court has unlimited jurisdiction in all cases, and sits as the Circuit Court to try criminal cases. The Parish Court in each parish hears both criminal and civil cases, excluding grave offences. The Petty Sessions are held under Justices of the Peace, with power to hear minor crimes.
The Supreme Court of Judicature of Barbados is the highest judicial body in the country of Barbados. It is made up of the High Court and the Court of Appeals.
The Judiciary of Barbados is an independent branch of the Barbadian government, subject only to the Barbadian Constitution. It is headed by the Chief Justice of Barbados. Barbados is a common law jurisdiction, in which precedents from English law and British Commonwealth tradition may be taken into account.
British Coal Corp v R is a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in which the authority of the Canadian Parliament to prohibit appeals to the JCPC in criminal cases was upheld.
R v Coote is a Canadian constitutional law decision in 1873 dealing with the powers of the provinces under the British North America Act, 1867. The point in issue was whether Quebec had the constitutional authority to create a mandatory inquiry power for provincial fire commissioners.
Cushing v Dupuy is a Canadian constitutional law case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1880, at that time the highest court of appeal for the British Empire, including Canada. The case was on appeal from the Quebec Court of Queen's Bench, and dealt with the following issues:
Deakin v Webb was one of a series of cases concerning whether the States could tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. The High Court of Australia overruled a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, holding that the States could not tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. This resulted in conflict with the Privy Council that was ultimately resolved by the passage of Commonwealth law in 1907 to permit the States to tax the income of a Commonwealth officer. The constitutional foundation of the decision was overturned by the subsequent decision of the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' Case.
Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW), and Flint v Webb, were the last of a series of cases concerning whether the States could tax the income of a Commonwealth officer which had resulted in conflict between the High Court and the Privy Council. The two cases were heard together, however two separate judgments were issued with Baxter v Commissioners of Taxation (NSW) addressing the substantive issues, and Flint v Webb addressing the applications for a certificate to appeal to the Privy Council. The judgement of Griffith CJ in Flint v Webb suggested two ways in which that conflict could be resolved. Both suggestions were adopted by the Commonwealth Parliament by legislation that permitted the States to tax the income of a Commonwealth officer, and gave the High Court exclusive appellate jurisdiction on such constitutional questions. The constitutional foundation of the decision was overturned by the subsequent decision of the High Court in the 1920 Engineers' case.
The Constitution Act 1933 was an Act of the Oireachtas of the Irish Free State amending the Constitution of the Irish Free State which had been adopted in 1922. It abolished the right of appeal from the Supreme Court of the Irish Free State to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It was part of a series of constitutional changes the Fianna Fáil government led by Éamon de Valera had initiated after coming to office in 1932 which reduced the connections between the Irish Free State and the United Kingdom.
The Supreme Court of the Gambia is a superior court of record and the highest court in The Gambia. Established in 1851, it has appellate and original jurisdiction over any law exceeding the powers conferred by the Constitution or any law upon the National Assembly or any other person or authority.
Until 1933, Article 66 of the Constitution of the Irish Free State permitted appeals of decisions of the Supreme Court of the Irish Free State to be made to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) in London. This was a requirement of the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, which underpinned the creation of the Irish Free State. The treaty specified that the Free State's constitutional status would be the same as Canada, another British Dominion, whose local courts allowed further appeal to the JCPC.
Attorney General for Quebec v Queen Insurance Company is a Canadian constitutional law decision in 1878, dealing with the taxation and licensing powers of the provinces under the federal-provincial division of powers.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
