Hinds v. Attorney General & Ors (Barbados)

Privy Council Appeal No. 28 of 2000

Richard Hinds Appellant

(1) The Attorney General and

(2) The Superintendent of Glendairy Prison Respondents

FROM

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BARBADOS

JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL

COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL,

Delivered the 5th December 2001

------------------

Present at the hearing:-

Lord Bingham of Cornhill

Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough

Lord Scott of Foscote

Sir Murray Stuart-Smith

Sir Kenneth Keith

[Delivered by Lord Bingham of Cornhill]

------------------

In this appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of Barbados the appellant seeks declaratory relief under section 24 of the constitution of Barbados. The appeal raises two broad questions. The first, a question of substance, is whether the denial of free legal representation to the appellant on his criminal trial in 1991 breached a right guaranteed to him under the constitution. The second is a procedural question: whether, if his constitutional right was breached, the appellant is entitled to declaratory relief under section 24.
On the night of 24 December 1988 the house of Viterose Hinds was burned to the ground. The appellant had had a relationship with the daughter of the owner, Heather Hinds, who was the mother of three of his children. But there were disputes concerning the two surviving children and the parents lived separately. After the fire, the appellant was arrested and charged with setting fire to the house contrary to section 4 of the Malicious Injury to Property Act (Cap 140). The evidence is that before his trial the appellant twice applied to the Community Legal Services Commission, the body responsible for administering the community legal aid scheme in Barbados, for the grant of legal assistance, but he received no answer. He appeared before Waterman J on 1 July 1991 and applied to the judge for legal aid. According to him he "was told by that judge that there was no legal aid for arson or words to that effect". Counsel who prosecuted at the trial gives a somewhat different account. He deposes:

"This request was considered by the said Learned Trial Judge within the provisions of the Community Legal Services Act, Cap 112A, which is an Act to provide for a system of free legal services to persons of insufficient means … the Learned Trial Judge refused the request on the ground that the case was not, and was not likely to be of difficulty to require the assistance of an Attorney– at-Law on behalf of the person charged therewith for its proper determination."

The appellant's recollection is different:

"I say that the Judge did state the offences for which legal aid was provided and told me that arson was not one of those offences. I don't recall the Judge saying that the case was not likely to be of difficulty to require the assistance of an Attorney-at-Law. I also do not recall that the Judge said anything to alert…

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