Wayne Alleyne and 4 others (Appellants) v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0024

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

Wayne Alleyne, Lennard Sylvester, Winston Solomon, Junior Collins and Simon Habib

Respondent(s)

The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

Issue

Were the appellants entitled to declaratory relief in respect of the breaches of their constitutional rights as identified by the Judge? What is the correct approach that the courts should adopt to the assessment and award of vindicatory (as opposed to compensatory) damages? Have the courts in Trinidad and Tobago adopted an erroneous approach to the assessment of damages awarded for the breach of constitutional rights?

Facts

In these consolidated appeals, the appellants were charged with murder, except for Mr Sylvester who was charged with attempted murder. At their respective trials, four of the appellants were found guilty but insane and ordered to be detained “until the President’s Pleasure is known” pursuant to section 67 of the Criminal Procedure Act Chapter 12:02 (“CPA”). Similarly, having been found guilty of manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility, Mr Solomon was ordered to be detained until the “President’s Pleasure is known” pursuant to section 4A (6) of the Offences Against the Person Act Chapter 11:08 (“OAPA”). According to those sentences, each appellant was detained at St. Ann’s Psychiatric Hospital (“St. Ann’s”). While at St. Anns, the appellants were subject to psychiatric evaluations. In each appellant’s case, their final psychiatric evaluation concluded with recommendations by the Psychiatric Hospital Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) for their release. However, the appellants continued to be detained even after those psychiatric evaluations had been conducted and the recommendations had been made that they were fit for release. At the time of instituting their respective High Court proceedings, the appellants continued to be detained at St. Ann’s. The appellants contended that sections 67 and 68 of the CPA and section 4A of the OAPA were unconstitutional, that their continued detention amounted to a breach of their constitutional rights under sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution, and that they were entitled to declaratory relief and an award of damages. By an order dated 21 May 2007, Mr. Justice Ibrahim ordered the immediate release of the appellants and adjourned all further claims. The further claims were determined by Mr Justice Rampersad (“the Judge”) on 19 May 2016. The Judge declined to make a formal declaration. However, the Judge awarded damages to each appellant in respect of the periods for which they had been wrongly detained. Applying the decision of the Court of Appeal in Mukesh Maharaj v The Attorney General, the Judge assessed damages from the date of the recommendations for the release of each appellant until the date of their actual release, (less a period of three months and ten days to take account of administrative issues referred to in Mukesh). The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal on the basis that level of damages awarded by the Judge was inordinately low and they were entitled to have their awards increased. There was no cross appeal by the State seeking to reduce the amount of damages awarded by the Judge. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the appellants and accordingly dismissed the appeals with costs to be paid by the appellants. The Court of Appeal also varied the award of interest (reducing it from 6% to 3%) in respect of the period between the various recommendations for release and the actual date of release. By an order dated 3 February 2025, the Court of Appeal granted the appellants final leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Date of issue

28 March 2025

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Back to top