Floyd Basil Hall (Appellant) v The King (Respondent) (Turks and Caicos Islands)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0092

Jurisdiction

Turks and Caicos Islands

Parties

Appellant(s)

Floyd Hall

Respondent(s)

The King

Issue

Having found that the Appellant’s constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time had been breached, did the Judge err in declining to order a permanent stay of the proceedings on the ground of abuse of process? Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the Judge was correct to dismiss the Appellant’s applications for the proceedings to be stayed? Did the Judge err in her assessment of the evidence offered by the Appellant as part of his defence, and did the Court of Appeal err in declining to interfere with the Judge’s findings? Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the Judge’s failure to properly apply the good character direction in relation to FBH did not affect the safety of his conviction? Did the Court of Appeal err by misapplying the statutory proviso contained in section 7(1) of the Court of Appeal Ordinance?

Facts

This appeal concerns the conviction of a former government minister, Floyd Basil Hall (“FBH”), for bribery following an investigation into the possible corruption or serious dishonesty of various elected officials of the Turks and Caicos Islands (“the TCI”). FBH was arrested on 2 November 2011. The first trial commenced on 16 January 2016 and was conducted by Harrison J. Harrison J died on 7 February 2021, with the trial incomplete. Following Harrison J’s death, The Hon Chief Justice Mabel Agyemang (“the Judge”) took conduct of the proceedings. She gave directions for a re-trial of the remaining defendants (including FBH). On 3 March 2021, FBH (along with most of the other defendants) filed a constitutional motion alleging a breach to their right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. On 16 March 2021, FBH and other defendants also filed applications to stay the proceedings on the ground of abuse of process, by reason of delay. On 7 May 2021, the Judge dismissed the constitutional motion. On the same day, the Judge ruled on the abuse of process applications, finding that there had been a delay resulting in a breach of FBH’s right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, but did not permanently stay the proceedings. The Judge ordered that if the Crown wished to continue with the prosecutions, it was to present severed informations to the court to enable expedited trials to take place. The Crown subsequently filed two severed informations (“A” and “B”). Information B charged FBH with 3 counts of conspiracy to defraud and 1 count of bribery. On 1 June 2021, the defendants made a second application to stay the proceedings by reason of abuse of process, arguing that the Crown had failed to comply with the court’s directions. This second application for a stay was refused the following day. On 9 June 2021, the Judge ordered that the re-trial would be split into two separate trials (“Trial A” and “Trial B”). Trial B would concern the information filed against FBH (among others) and was to be tried first. The second trial commenced on 1 July 2021 and the Crown closed its case on 24 March 2022. The defendants then filed submissions that there was no case to answer. On 31 August 2022, the court ruled against those applications. On 29 August 2022, FBH filed a third application for a stay of the proceedings on the ground of abuse of process. This application was dismissed by the Judge on 5 September 2022. On 25 September 2023, FBH was acquitted of 3 counts of conspiracy to defraud, but convicted of bribery. FBH appealed against the conviction to the Court of Appeal of the Turks and Caicos Islands (“CA”), arguing amongst other things that: (1) The Judge had erred by failing to stop the trial as an abuse of process after having ruled on 7 May 2021 that there had been a breach of FBH’s constitutional right to a “fair hearing within a reasonable time;” (2) The Judge’s verdict was unreasonable as there were several procedural irregularities which impacted the fairness of the proceedings; (3) The Judge had erred in her assessment of the evidence; and, (4) The Judge had erred in failing to give sufficient or any weight to FBH’s positive good character. The CA dismissed FBH’s appeal. FBH now seeks leave to appeal the conviction to His Majesty in Council.