Ianthe Harding Administratrix of the Estate of Alfred Harding Deceased [Substituted by Order of this Court Dated January 30, 2001] Appellant v [1] The Superintendent of Prisons [2] Attorney General of St. Lucia Respondents [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: BYRON, C.J.,Chief Justice,Albert Redhead,Justice of Appeal,Justice of Appeal [Ag.]
• Judgment Date: 17 September 2001
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2001] ECSC J0917-3
• Docket Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO.13 OF 2000
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 17 September 2001

[2001] ECSC J0917-3

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Hon. Sir C.M. Dennis Byron Chief Justice

The Hon. Mr. Albert Redhead Justice of Appeal

The Hon. Mr. Joseph S. Archibald Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

CIVIL APPEAL NO.13 OF 2000

Between:

Ianthe Harding

Administratrix of the Estate of Alfred Harding Deceased [Substituted by Order of this Court Dated January 30, 2001]

Appellant

and

[1] The Superintendent of Prisons

[2] The Attorney General of St. Lucia

Respondents

Appearances:

Mr. Martinus Francois for the Appellant

Ms. Louise Blenman, Solicitor General and Ms. Cheryl Mathurin for the Respondents

BYRON, C.J.

1 The appellant applied for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against a decision of the Court of Appeal given on February 26^th 2001, either as a matter of right under the provisions of Section 108(I) (c) of the Constitution or in the alternative under section 108(2) (a) of the Constitution.

2 Section 108 (1) ( c) of the constitution reads as follows:

"An appeal shall lie from decisions of the Court of Appeal to Her Majesty in Council as of right in the following cases:-

• (a) …

• (b) …

• (c) final decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings which involve a question as to the interpretation of this Constitution;"

3 Section 108(2):-

"An appeal shall lie from decisions of the Court of Appeal to Her Majesty in Council with the leave of the Court of Appeal in the following cases:-

(a) decisions in any civil proceedings where in the opinion of the Court of Appeal the question involved in the appeal is one that, by reason of its great general or public importance or otherwise, ought to be submitted to Her Majesty in Council

4 The respondents have opposed the application. In relation to the application of section 108(1) (c) they have submitted that no question of interpretation of the Constitution was alleged, that no principle of law is in dispute and that the appeal raises questions only as to the application of the facts. In relation to section 108(2) (a) they have denied that any question of great general or public importance is involved.

5 The respondent's task although supported by numerous authorities was an uphill one. The proceedings had been commenced by an amended notice of motion which was entitled

"In the matter of the Constitution of Saint Lucia contained in the Saint Lucia Constitution Order S.I. No. 1901 of 1978

And

In the Matter of an Application by the Applicant a person alleging that certain of the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined, guaranteed and secured by virtue of Sections 3 and 5 of the said Constitution has been, is being or likely to be contravened in relation to him and is entitled to redress in accordance with Section 16 of the said Constitution.

And

In the Matter of Section 13 (2) of the Crown Proceedings Ordinance Chapter 13 of the Revised laws of Saint Lucia 1957 whereby the Attorney General is the person against whom proceedings against the State are to be commenced."

6 After trial the learned trial judge delivered the judgment which was the subject of the appeal before the Court of Appeal. The judgment contained declarations that:

"a. …the mechanical restraint with chains secured with two padlocks tied to the ankles of the Applicant on 31^st day of August 1999 for a continuous period of ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days until 15^th day of June 2000 without any removal amounted to torture or inhuman or degrading punishment contrary to Section 5 of the Constitution of St. Lucia.

b. …the removal of the said mechanical restraint and its replacement whenever the Applicant visits the bathroom or whenever the Applicant is visited by...