module 2 cape law cases

Collymore v Attorney General (1969)

Issue

The case centered on whether the Industrial Stabilisation Act 1965 in Trinidad and Tobago violated the constitutional right to freedom of association by restricting the right to strike.

Facts

• Collymore and other trade union members working for oil companies challenged the Industrial Stabilisation Act 1965, arguing that it was ultra vires (beyond the legal power) of the Constitution.

• The Act prohibited strikes while binding arbitration was in place, effectively limiting workers' ability to protest.

• The plaintiffs argued that this restriction infringed upon their constitutional right to freedom of association.

Decision

The Privy Council ruled that the Act did not violate the Constitution. The court held that freedom of association does not inherently include the right to strike.

Reason for the Decision

Lord Donovan reasoned that while workers had the freedom to form and join trade unions, this did not automatically grant them the right to strike. The ruling clarified that the right to strike was not explicitly protected under the Constitution

Bribery Commissioners v Ranasinghe (1965) ( precedent for collymore)

Issue

The case questioned the validity of the Bribery Commission in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). The key issue was whether the Act establishing the Commission violated the Ceylonese Constitution, particularly regarding judicial appointments.

Facts

- The Bribery Commission was created under an Act that allowed the Governor General, acting on the advice of the Minister of Justice, to appoint its members.

- However, the Ceylonese Constitution required that judicial appointments be made by the Judicial and Legal Services Commission.

- The Court of Appeal ruled that the Act effectively amended the Constitution but lacked the required certificate from the Speaker, making it invalid.

- The Bribery Commissioner appealed to the Privy Council, arguing that Parliament was sovereign and its laws should be regarded as valid.

Decision

The Privy Council held that the Act was void because it was inconsistent with the Constitution. Since it attempted to amend the Constitution without following the proper procedure, it was deemed unconstitutional.

Reason for the Decision

The court emphasized that constitutional amendments require strict adherence to procedural safeguards. Since the Act lacked the necessary Speaker’s certificate, it was invalid. This ruling reinforced the principle that even sovereign parliaments must comply with constitutional requirements.

This case remains a landmark decision in constitutional law, highlighting the importance of procedural safeguards in legislative processes. Would you like to explore how this ruling influenced later cases?

Hinds v R (1977)

Issue

The case examined whether the Gun Court Act 1974 violated the Jamaican Constitution by transferring sentencing powers from the judiciary to an executive body.

Facts

• Five appellants were convicted of unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition under the Gun Court Act 1974.

• They were sentenced to detention and hard labor "during the Governor General’s pleasure," based on recommendations from a Review Board.

• The Review Board consisted of a judge and two non-judicial members, raising concerns about whether it was performing judicial functions improperly.

• The appellants argued that the Act violated the separation of powers by allowing an executive body to determine sentences instead of a court.

Decision

The Privy Council ruled that the relevant sections of the Gun Court Act 1974 were unconstitutional. The Act transferred judicial sentencing powers to an executive body, which was inconsistent with the Constitution.

Reason for the Decision

The court held that the separation of powers doctrine was implicit in the Jamaican Constitution. Since the Act gave the Review Board discretion over sentencing, it violated constitutional provisions related to judicial functions. As a result, the unconstitutional sections of the Act were declared void.

Thomas v Attorney General (1982) AC 113

Issue: Whether the dismissal of a police officer violated constitutional protections against political influence in public service appointments.

Facts: Endell Thomas, a police officer in Trinidad and Tobago, was dismissed under regulations that allowed political influence in public service appointments. He challenged the dismissal, arguing it violated constitutional protections.

Decision: The Privy Council ruled that the dismissal was unconstitutional, emphasizing that public service appointments should be insulated from political influence.

Reason for the Decision: The court reinforced the principle that autonomous commissions should control public service appointments to prevent government interference

Maharaj v Attorney General (No 2) (1979) AC 385

Issue: Whether wrongful imprisonment due to judicial error violated constitutional rights.

Facts: Ramesh Maharaj, a barrister, was convicted of contempt and imprisoned. He argued that his fundamental rights were violated because the judge failed to properly explain the nature of the contempt charge.

Decision: The Privy Council ruled that Maharaj’s imprisonment was unconstitutional and awarded him compensation.

Reason for the Decision: The court held that due process was violated, emphasizing that individuals have a right to a fair legal system, even if judicial errors occur