PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad –The Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Wednesday upheld an appeal by Solomon Marin Jr of Belize, permanently staying the enforcement of his sentences to remedy the breach of his constitutional right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.
Marin was tried by a jury and convicted of the crimes of kidnapping and robbery on August 26, 2006. He was sentenced to two concurrent 10 -year terms. But he appealed the conviction and sentences imposed. There was a nine-year delay between his belief in the Supreme Court and the hearing and determination of his appeal.
Marin subsequently withdrew his appeal against the sentences but maintained his appeal against conviction. On appeal, Marin argued that the post-conviction delay breached his fundamental right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time and asked for his sentence to be quashed.
The State admitted that the delay breached Marin’s right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time but argued that the conviction should not be quashed as it was otherwise sound. The Court of Appeal proceeded because Marin’s right had been violated. However, it did not grant a remedy. The Court also refused to quash his conviction, finding that it was sound.
In his appeal to the CCJ, Marin argued that after concluding that his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time had been breached, the Court of Appeal should have considered what remedy was appropriate to vindicate the violation. He submitted that the proper remedy was an order for a permanent stay of further enforcement of his sentences.
The CCJ needed to determine as a starting point whether the Court of Appeal and the CCJ had jurisdiction to decide the constitutional issue of the breach of Marin’s fundamental right.
The State argued that the Court of Appeal and the CCJ lacked the necessary jurisdiction to entertain this issue, as it did not ‘arise out of’ and was not ‘bound up with the substantive criminal proceedings’ and argued that Marin was required to file a separate originating application before the Supreme Court.
If the CCJ determined it had jurisdiction, it had to decide whether Marin was entitled to any relief, and if so, what were the appropriate remedies.
In its ruling, the CCJ, in a judgment authored by Justice Peter Jamadar, explained the Court’s approach to the interpretation of the Constitution and found that the Court of Appeal can, in certain circumstances, grant relief and a remedy for a breach of an individual’s fundamental rights where the breach arises during a case before it, even if not directly related to the issues that may or do arise from the substantive criminal trial.
He said in such instances, an aggrieved individual does not have to seek such relief by way of a separate originating application in the Supreme Court.
Marin was granted relief for the breach of his constitutional right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.
Justice Denys Barrow explained why both a declaration and an order suspending any further execution of the sentences imposed were the appropriate remedies in this matter.
But in a separate judgment, Justice Winston Anderson found that the Court of Appeal possessed the jurisdiction to pronounce upon the claim of constitutional violations because that claim could properly be said to have arisen in the appellate proceedings before that court.
He agreed that a clear breach had occurred and that a permanent stay of further enforcement of the sentences was the appropriate redress in all the circumstances of the case.
Marin’s appeal was allowed.
and then 