Naresh Boodram v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago)

Naresh Boodram v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago)

The High Court, acting under section 14 of the Constitution, is not restricted to substituting life imprisonment for a vacated death sentence; it may impose any appropriate lawful sentence, considering all relevant facts and circumstances. The Court of Appeal erred in declining to award costs to the successful appellant, as the general rule is that costs follow the event.

Parties
Respondent/cross Appellant: Naresh Boodram; Appellant/cross Respondent: Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Attorney General's appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Mandatory Death Penalty, Commutation of Sentence, Judicial Discretion, Costs in Constitutional Litigation
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Mandatory Death Penalty Commutation of Sentence Judicial Discretion Costs in Constitutional Litigation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Naresh Boodram

Respondent/cross Appellant

Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

Appellant/cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court, upon vacating a death sentence due to unconstitutional delay, is restricted to imposing life imprisonment or may impose any lawful substitute sentence
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to award costs to the successful appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court, acting under section 14 of the Constitution, is not restricted to substituting life imprisonment for a vacated death sentence; it may impose any appropriate lawful sentence, considering all relevant facts and circumstances. The Court of Appeal erred in declining to award costs to the successful appellant, as the general rule is that costs follow the event.

Court Disposition

Attorney General's appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted to the High Court for resentencing with discretion to impose any appropriate lawful sentence
  • Attorney General to pay Naresh Boodram's costs of both the appeal and cross-appeal, assessed if not agreed