Jump to content

Boyce v R

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Boyce v R
Arms of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
CourtJudicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case name Lennox Ricardo Boyce and Jeffrey Joseph, Appellants v The Queen, Respondent
Decided7 July 2004
Citations[2004] UKPC 32, [2005] 1 AC 400, [2004] 3 WLR 786
Case history
Prior actionCourt of Appeal of Barbados
Case opinions
Lord Hoffman
Keywords
Capital punishment; inhuman or degrading punishment

Boyce v R is a 2004 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) case which upheld the law that sets out a mandatory sentence of death for murder in Barbados.

Background

[edit]

The JCPC held in some cases, the law that makes capital punishment mandatory for murder will violate the prohibition on "inhuman or degrading punishment" in the Constitution of Barbados.[1] (This principle is consistent with the 2002 JCPC cases of Hughes, Fox, and Reyes.) However, because (1) the Constitution of Barbados disallows itself to act to invalidate laws that existed prior to the enactment of the constitution, and (2) the law in question pre-dated the constitution, the mandatory death provisions of the law could not be invalidated and must be upheld.

In Matthew v S, which was released on the same day, the JCPC applied the same principles to a similar law in Trinidad and Tobago.[2]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Cross, Jane E. (2014). "A Matter of Discretion: The De Facto Abolition of the Mandatory Death Penalty in Barbados ? A Study of the Boyce and Joseph Cases". The University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. 46 (1): 39–59. ISSN 0884-1756.
  2. ^ "Matthew v. Trinidad and Tobago". International Law Reports. 134: 687–718. January 2008 [July 2004]. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316152669.011. ISSN 0309-0671 – via Cambridge University Press.
[edit]