Urban St. Brice v The Attorney General of Saint Lucia

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Baptiste JA
• Judgment Date: 31 July 2020
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2020] ECSC J0731-3
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: SLUHCVAP2018/0036
• Date: 31 July 2020

[2020] ECSC J0731-3

EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Hon. Mr. Davidson Kelvin Baptiste Justice of Appeal

The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom Justice of Appeal

The Hon. Mr. Michael J. Fay, QC Justice of Appeal [Ag.]

SLUHCVAP2018/0036

Between:

Urban St. Brice

Appellant

and

The Attorney General of Saint Lucia

Respondent

Appearances:

Ms. Natalie DaBreo and Mrs. Cynthia Hinkson-Ouhla for the Appellant

Mr. Seryozha Cenaz, Senior Crown Counsel, and Mrs. Antonia Charlemagne for the Respondent

Civil appeal — Appeal from refusal of constitutional relief — Section 8(1) of the Constitution of Saint Lucia — Right to fair hearing within reasonable time — Effect of delay in determination of criminal charge on the right to fair trial — Charge for murder without final disposal or determination after 18 years — Whether right to fair hearing within reasonable time was breached — Delay in trial substantially caused by defendant's actions — Whether delay by a defendant is decisive of whether right to fair hearing within reasonable time has been breached — Remedies for breach of constitutional right pursuant to section 16 of the Constitution of Saint Lucia — Whether indictment should be permanently stayed or quashed — Threshold for grant of permanent stay of criminal proceedings — Whether circumstances justify grant of compensatory, vindicatory or exemplary damages

Mr. Urban St. Brice (“Mr. St. Brice”) was charged with murder in 2002. To date, the charge for murder has not been finally disposed of or determined on account of a number of intervening occurrences including several aborted murder trials, various constitutional applications, applications for a stay of the proceedings, judicial review applications and several appeals.

The present appeal arises from a constitutional motion filed by Mr. St. Brice in 2018 seeking declaratory and other relief on the basis that his constitutional and common law rights had been breached as a result of the non-determination of the murder charge. The motion was heard by a learned judge who summarised the issues arising as follows: (i) whether Mr. St. Brice's constitutional right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time had been infringed; (ii) whether Mr. St. Brice had been subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment and false imprisonment; (iii) whether his right to disclosure had been infringed; (iv) whether he had been falsely imprisoned; (v) whether any of the matters raised were res judicata; and (vi) whether Mr. St. Brice was entitled to the remedies sought, i.e. the quashing of the indictment, a stay of the proceedings, vindicatory, aggravated, exemplary and general damages, and costs.

The learned judge refused the motion and found, inter alia, that Mr. St. Brice was largely responsible for the delay in his trial and therefore that his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time had not been infringed.

Mr. St. Brice appealed. The issues for consideration by the Court of Appeal were: (i) whether Mr. St. Brice's right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time had been infringed; and (ii) the appropriate remedies to be granted if Mr. St. Brice's right was in fact breached.

Held: allowing the appeal to the extent that a declaration is granted that Mr. St. Brice's right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time as guaranteed by section 8(1) of the Constitution of Saint Lucia has been breached; ordering that the criminal proceedings against Mr. St. Brice are permanently stayed; making no order for damages; and ordering costs to Mr. St. Brice here and below to be assessed if not agreed within 14 days, that:

• 1. A finding that a defendant is largely responsible for the delay in the completion of his criminal trial is not decisive of whether the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time has been breached, as the time may come where the overall delay is so great, irrespective of who caused it, that the court is impelled to conclude that the right has been breached. At the time the learned judge considered the matter in 2018, almost 16 years had elapsed since Mr. St. Brice's arrest and charge for murder without that charge being determined. The learned judge erred in law by focusing on the cause of the delay in the matter and by failing to directly addressing the question of overall delay in the context of the constitutional guarantee to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, irrespective of who caused, authored or orchestrated it. In the circumstances, the extraordinary time period which has elapsed from the time of Mr. St. Brice's arrest and charge in November 2002 to present, without the murder charge having been finally heard and determined, leads to the insuppressible conclusion that the overall delay has been so great that the reasonable time guarantee in section 8(1) of the Constitution has been violated.

  Fa'Afete Taito v The Queen and James McLeod Bennett and Ors v The Queen [2002] UKPC 15 considered; Dyer v Watson and Anor [2004] 1 AC 379 considered; Gibson v The Attorney General of Barbados [2010] CCJ 3 (AJ) considered; Prakash Boolell v The State [2006] UKPC 46 applied; Elaheebocus v The State of Mauritius [2009] UKPC 7 applied; Abeeluck v The State of Mauritius [2010] UKPC 13 applied; Section 8(1) of the Constitution of Saint Lucia, Cap 1.01 of the Revised Laws of Saint Lucia 2015 applied; Urban St. Brice v The Attorney General SLUHCVAP2012/0027 (delivered 31st October 2016, unreported) considered.

• 2. A permanent stay of criminal proceedings is an exceptional remedy which ought to be deployed sparingly, carefully and for compelling reasons. While it is that a permanent stay may well reward Mr. St. Brice by permitting his escape from being brought to justice, Mr. St. Brice has spent approximately 17 years and 3 months in prison awaiting the determination or disposal of the murder charge against him. It could not have been contemplated or countenanced that an accused would be in custody for over 17 years awaiting trial or retrial for murder. The circumstances pertaining to Mr. St. Brice's case are exceptional such as to warrant the imposition of a permanent stay of the criminal proceedings in order to vindicate the breach of his right to trial within a reasonable time.

  R v Horseferry Road Magistrates Court, ex p Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42 applied; R v DS [2020] EWCA Crim 285 applied; The Queen v Scott Crawley and Ors [2014] EWCA Crim 1028 applied; Gibson v The Attorney General of Barbados [2010] CCJ 3 (AJ) applied; Attorney General's Reference (No. 2 of 2001) [2004] AC 72 applied; Prakash Boolell v The State [2006] UKPC 46 applied; Darmalingum v The State [2000] UKPC 30 applied.

• 3. Mr. St. Brice's application to quash the indictment is now moot in view of the grant of a permanent stay. In any event, there would be no basis for the grant of such an order as the indictment was properly preferred against him. As Mr. St. Brice would have been lawfully arrested and charged at the outset, and his arrest and detention would not have been unlawful, he would also not be entitled to damages for false imprisonment at common law, which could possibly flow from the quashing of the indictment.

• 4. It has been concluded in several proceedings, including proceedings before the Court of Appeal, that Mr. St. Brice was largely responsible for the delay in the determination of the charge against him. There is no evidence here of dilatory tactics by the State – on the contrary, the Director of Public Prosecutions was always ready to proceed with the matter. In the circumstances therefore, an award of exemplary or vindicatory damages would not be appropriate. Having regard to the gravity of the offence and all the circumstances of the case, declaratory relief coupled with the exceptional remedy of a permanent stay of the criminal proceedings would provide an emphatic vindication of the breach of Mr. St. Brice's constitutional right to trial with a reasonable time.

  Taikitota v The Attorney General [2009] UKPC 11 applied; Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1229 applied; Kuddas v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary [2000] EWCA Civ 39 applied; Walumba Lumba (previously referred to as WL Congo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12 applied; Graham v The Police Service Commission and the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2011] UKPC 46 applied; Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Ramanoop [2006] 1 AC 328 applied; Gibson v The Attorney General of Barbados [2010] CCJ 3 (AJ) applied.

Baptiste JA

1 Another chapter in the extraordinary saga of Urban St. Brice. In November 2002, St. Brice was charged with murder. In the year 2020, there is yet to be a disposition or determination of the charge. This is not to say that matters have been in repose. Several things have occurred in the interregnum, including a murder trial and conviction, a successful appeal against conviction in 2007, several aborted murder retrials, various constitutional applications, applications for a stay of proceedings, judicial review applications and several appeals.

2 There was nothing exceptional about the criminal case itself. The appeal against conviction was allowed on the ground that the trial judge erred in directing the jury on identification by failing to comply with sections 102 and 136(2) of the Evidence Act. 1 As the case wound its way through the court system in its diverse iterations, important pronouncements were made by the High Court and the Court of Appeal regarding delay in the trial process, responsibility for that delay and the issue of a fair hearing within a reasonable time. The courts attributed the delay substantially to St. Brice and held that his constitutional right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time had not been breached.

3 The present episode in the saga presents itself as an appeal against the dismissal by a learned judge (“the Learned Judge” or...