Hamilton & Anor v The Queen (Jamaica)

[2012] UKPC 31
Privy Council Appeal No 0051 of 2011

JUDGMENT

Carlos Hamilton and Jason Lewis (Appellants) v The Queen (Respondent)

From the Court of Appeal of Jamaica

before

Lord Hope
Lord Kerr
Lord Dyson
Lord Reed
Sir Anthony Hooper

JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY

LORD HOPE

ON

16 August 2012

Heard on 17-18 July 2012

Appellant
Edward Fitzgerald QC
Richard Samuel
(Instructed by Herbert Smith LLP)

Respondent
Tom Poole
(Instructed by Charles Russell LLP)

See also: [2012] UKPC 37

LORD HOPE:

On 2 April 2001 the appellants were found guilty of the murder of Saleem Hines. They were sentenced to life imprisonment and to serve 25 years in prison before they became eligible for parole. On 24 March 2003 the Court of Appeal of Jamaica (Downer, Bingham and Panton JJA) refused the appellants' application for permission to appeal against their convictions and sentences. They now seek permission to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council against the judgment of the Court of Appeal. Their applications for permission to appeal were served on 27 July and filed on 29 July 2011. Rule 11(2) of the Judicial Committee (Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules Order 2009 ("the 2009 Rules") provides:

"An application for permission to appeal must be filed within 56 days from the date of the order or decision of the court below or the date of the court below refusing permission to appeal (if later)."

The period that elapsed between the order of the Court of Appeal and the appellants' applications for permission was 8 years and 4 months. In accordance with current practice, and in the exercise of the powers conferred on her by rule 5(1) of the 2009 Rules, the Registrar by entering the case onto the Judicial Committee's record in effect granted an extension of time for the filing of the applications. This was to enable the Board to consider whether or not permission to appeal should be granted. The Board directed that the applications should be put out for an oral hearing before five members of the Judicial Committee, with the appeals themselves to follow if the Board was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice that they should proceed to a full hearing. Concern was however expressed at the length of the delay. The parties were invited to make submissions on the approach that should be adopted in a case such as this, where the applications for permission were lodged long out of time.

The rule

Prior to the coming into force of the 2009 Rules the practice of the Board was not to lay down any precise timetable. Paragraph 5 of the Judicial Committee (General Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules Order 1982 provided that a petition for special leave to appeal was to be lodged "with the least possible delay" after the date of the judgment from which special leave to appeal was being sought. This reflected the fact that appeals come before the Board from jurisdictions with widely differing characteristics. It was thought preferable to…

JUDGMENT

16 August 2012

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established