| Judicial Committee of the Privy Council | |
|---|---|
_Tudor_Crown_and_Gaelic_Harp.svg) | |
 Interactive map of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council | |
| 51°30′01.3″N0°07′41.3″W / 51.500361°N 0.128139°W /51.500361; -0.128139 | |
| Established | 14 August 1833 |
| Jurisdiction | List of countries
|
| Location | Middlesex Guildhall, City of Westminster, London, England |
| Coordinates | 51°30′01.3″N0°07′41.3″W / 51.500361°N 0.128139°W /51.500361; -0.128139 |
| Authorised by |
|
| Website | jcpc |
TheJudicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) is thehighest court of appeal for theCrown Dependencies, theBritish Overseas Territories, someCommonwealth countries and a few institutions in theUnited Kingdom. Established on 14 August 1833 to hear appeals formerly heard by theKing-in-Council,[2] the Privy Council formerly acted as the court of last resort for the entireBritish Empire, except for the United Kingdom itself.[3][4]
Formally a statutory committee ofHis Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, the Judicial Committee consists ofsenior judges who are Privy Councillors; they are predominantlyjustices of theSupreme Court of the United Kingdom and senior judges from the Commonwealth of Nations. Although it is often simply referred to as the "Privy Council", the Judicial Committee is only one constituent part of the Council. InCommonwealth realms which retain the JCPC as the final court of appeal, appeals are nominally made to "His Majesty in Council" (i.e. theBritish monarch as formally advised by his privy counsellors), who then refers the case to the Judicial Committee for "advice". Inrepublics in the Commonwealth of Nations which retain the JCPC as their final court of appeal, appeals are made directly to the Judicial Committee itself. The panel of judges (typically five in number) hearing a particular case is known as "the Board". The report of the Board is, by convention, always accepted by the King-in-Council as judgment.
The origins of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council can be traced back to thecuria regis, or royal council. In theory, the king was the fount of justice, and petitions for redress of wrongs arising from his courts were addressed to him. That power was gradually taken over byParliament (which evolved out of thecuria regis) within England, but theKing-in-Council (which also evolved out of thecuria regis) retained jurisdiction to hear petitions from the King's non-English possessions, such as theChannel Islands and, later on, from England's colonies.[3]
The task of hearing appeals was given to a series of short-lived committees of the Privy Council. In 1679, appellate jurisdiction was given to theBoard of Trade, before being transferred to a standing Appeals Committee of the Privy Council in 1696.[5] The Appeals Committee of the Privy Council was one of the earliest judicial bodies which exercised the power of judicial review, in a series of cases from the American colonies which raised questions about the constitutionality of colonial statutes, measured against the royal charters which set out the powers of the colonial governments.[6][7]
By the early nineteenth century, the growth of the British Empire, which had greatly expanded the appellate jurisdiction of the Privy Council (despite the loss of appeals from the American colonies), had put great strains on the existing arrangements.[5] In particular, the Appeals Committee had to hear cases arising from a variety of different legal systems in the colonies, such asHindu law, with which its members were unfamiliar.[5] Another serious problem was that the Appeals Committee was technically acommittee of the whole of the entire Privy Council, of which a minimum of three were required for a quorum.[5] Since many members of the Privy Council were not lawyers, all members of the Appeals Committee had equal votes, and there was no requirement that any of the Privy Counsellors actually hearing a particular appeal had to be a lawyer, it became possible for certain parties to appeal to secure desired judgments by persuading nonlawyer Privy Counsellors to attend the hearings on their appeals.[5] For these reasons, the Appeals Committee fell into disrepute among better-informed lawyers and judges in the colonies.[5]
In 1833, at the instigation ofLord Brougham, theLord Chancellor, Parliament passed theJudicial Committee Act 1833 (3 & 4 Will. 4. c. 41). The act established the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, a statutory committee of the Privy Council that would hear appeals to theKing-in-Council. In addition to colonial appeals, later legislation gave the Judicial Committee appellate jurisdiction over a range of miscellaneous matters, such as patents, ecclesiastical matters, andprize suits.[3] At its height, the Judicial Committee was said to be the court of final appeal for over a quarter of the world.
In the twentieth century, the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council shrank considerably, as Britishdominions established their own courts of final appeal and as British colonies became independent, although many retained appeals to the Privy Council post-independence. Canada abolished Privy Council appeals in 1949, India and South Africa in 1950,Australia in 1986, and New Zealand in 2003. Currently, eleven Commonwealth countries outside of the United Kingdom retain Privy Council appeals, in addition to various British and New Zealand territories. The Judicial Committee also retains jurisdiction over a small number of domestic matters in the United Kingdom, reduced by the creation of theSupreme Court of the United Kingdom in 2009.
| This article is part of the series:Courts of England and Wales |
| Law of England and Wales |
|---|
 |
Criminal prosecution |
The United Kingdom does not have a single highest national court; the Judicial Committee is the highest court of appeal in some cases, while in most others the highest court of appeal is theSupreme Court of the United Kingdom. (In Scotland the highest court in criminal cases is theHigh Court of Justiciary; the Supreme Court is the highest court in civil cases and matters arising fromScottish devolution, the latter previously having been dealt with by the Judicial Committee.)
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has jurisdiction in the following domestic matters:
Additionally, the government may (through the King) refer any issue to the committee for "consideration and report" under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the court of final appeal for theChurch of England. It hears appeals from theArches Court of Canterbury and theChancery Court of York, except on matters of doctrine, ritual or ceremony, which go to theCourt of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved. By theChurch Discipline Act 1840 (3 & 4 Vict. c. 86) and theAppellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 all archbishops and bishops of the Church of England became eligible to be members of the Judicial Committee.
Prior to the coming into force of theConstitutional Reform Act 2005, the Privy Council was the court of last resort fordevolution issues. On 1 October 2009 this jurisdiction was transferred to the newSupreme Court of the United Kingdom.
Judgments of the Judicial Committee are not generallybinding on courts within theUnited Kingdom, having onlypersuasive authority, but are binding on all courts within any otherCommonwealth country which still allows for appeals to the Judicial Committee. Where a binding precedent of the UK Supreme Court, or of theHouse of Lords, or of theCourt of Appeal conflicts with that of a decision of the Judicial Committee on English law, English courts are required to follow the domestic decision over that of the Judicial Committee except when the Judicial Committee has in its decision expressly directed the domestic court to follow its new decision.[10] However, given the overlap between the membership of the Judicial Committee and of the Supreme Court, the decisions of the former are extremely persuasive and usually followed.[11]
The Judicial Committee holdsjurisdiction in appeals from the following 32 jurisdictions (including eleven independent nations):
Judicial appeal of final resort has been assumed by other bodies in some current and former Commonwealth countries:
| Country | Date | Abolishing statute | New court of final appeal | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Irish Free State | 1933 | Constitution (Amendment No. 22) Act 1933 | Supreme Court | Name changed toIreland by1937 Constitution. Left the Commonwealth via theRepublic of Ireland Act in 1949.Supreme Court reconstituted in 1961.[13] |
 Canada | 1949 | An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act, S.C. 1949 (2nd sess.), c. 37, s. 3. | Supreme Court of Canada | Criminal appeals ended in 1933.[14] |
 India | 1949 | Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act, 1949 | Federal Court | Replaced by theSupreme Court on 28 January 1950. |
 Newfoundland | 1949 | An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act, S.C. 1949 (2nd sess.), c. 37, s. 3. | Supreme Court of Canada | Right of appeal continued after Newfoundland joined Canada, until abolished by the federal government for all of Canada |
 South Africa | 1950 | Privy Council Appeals Act, 1950 | Supreme Court Appellate Division | Replaced by theSupreme Court of Appeal in 1997. |
 Pakistan | 1950 | Privy Council (Abolition of Jurisdiction) Act, 1950 | Federal Court | Replaced by theSupreme Court under the1956 Constitution. |
 Ghana | 1960 | Constitution (Consequential Provisions) Act 1960 | Supreme Court | |
 Tanganyika | 1962 | Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1962 | East African Court of Appeal | [15] |
 Nigeria | 1963 | 1963 Constitution | Supreme Court | |
 Kenya | 1964 | Constitution of Kenya (Amendment) Act, 1965[16] | East African Court of Appeal | |
 Malawi | 1965 | Constitution of Malawi (Amendment) Act, 1965 | Supreme Court of Appeal of Malawi | |
 Uganda | 1966 | 1966 Constitution | East African Court of Appeal | Criminal and civil appeals ended in 1964.[17] |
 Australia | 1968 | Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968[18] | High Court | Abolished appeals of cases originating in federal and territory courts. |
 Lesotho | 1970 | Court of Appeal and High Court Order 1970 | Court of Appeal of Lesotho | [19][20] |
 Sierra Leone | 1971 | 1971 Constitution[21] | Supreme Court | |
 Ceylon | 1971 | Court of Appeal Act No. 44 of 1971[22] | Court of Appeal | |
 Malta | 1972 | Constitution of Malta (Amendment) Act, 1972[23] | Constitutional Court of Malta | |
 Guyana | 1973 | Constitution (Amendment) Act 1973[24] | Court of Appeal of Guyana | Criminal and civil appeals ended in 1970.[25] Since 2005 theCaribbean Court of Justice hears appeals from Guyana's Court of Appeal. |
 Botswana | 1973 | Judicial Committee (Abolition of Appeals) Act 1973[26] | Court of Appeal | |
 Malaysia | 1985 | Constitution (Amendment) Act 1983 Courts of Judicature (Amendment) Act 1984 | Supreme Court | The Supreme Court was called the Federal Court until the 1985 change and reverted to the old name in 1994. |
| 1986 | Australia Act 1986 | High Court | Abolished appeals of cases originating in state courts. | |
 Fiji | 1987 | Fiji Judicature Decree 1987[27] | Court of Appeal | |
 Singapore | 1994 | Judicial Committee (Repeal) Act 1994 | Court of Appeal | |
 The Gambia | 1998 | 1997Constitution of the Gambia | Supreme Court | A restructure of the Gambian judiciary byYahya Jammeh, which made the Supreme Court of The Gambia the highest court instead of being below theCourt of Appeal of the Gambia as was the case under the1970 Constitution of the Gambia. |
 New Zealand | 2004 | Supreme Court Act 2003 | Supreme Court | |
 Barbados | 2005 | Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2003 | Caribbean Court of Justice | |
 Belize | 2010 | Belize Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 2010 | ||
 Dominica | 2015 | Constitution of Dominica (Amendment) Act, 2014 | ||
 Saint Lucia | 2023 | Constitution of Saint Lucia (Amendment) Act, 2023[28] |
The following countries or territories did not retain the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee at the time of independence or of the transfer of sovereignty from the United Kingdom:Burma (1948),Israel (1948),Somaliland (1960),Cyprus (1960),Zanzibar (1963),Zambia (1964),Rhodesia (1965),South Yemen (1967),Swaziland (1968),Papua New Guinea (1975),Seychelles (1976),Solomon Islands (1978),Vanuatu (1980),Hong Kong (1997).[citation needed]
The following are members of the Judicial Committee:
The bulk of the Committee's work is done by the Supreme Court Justices, who are paid to work full-time in both the Supreme Court and the Privy Council. Overseas judges may not sit when certain UK domestic matters are being heard, but will often sit when appeals from their own countries are being heard.
Until 1904 the Registrar of theAdmiralty court was also Registrar to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in ecclesiastical and maritime causes.[39]
Most appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are formally appeals to "His Majesty in Council". Appeals from Brunei are formally to theSultan and Yang di-Pertuan, while appeals from republics within the Commonwealth are directly to the Judicial Committee. Appeals are generally by leave of the local Court of Appeal, although the Judicial Committee retains discretionary power to grant leave to appeal as well.
After hearing an appeal, the panel of judges which heard the case (known as "the Board") issues its decision in writing. For appeals to His Majesty in Council, the Board submits its decision to the King as advice for his consideration. By convention, the advice is always accepted by the King and given effect via anOrder in Council.
Historically, the Judicial Committee could only give a unanimous report, but since the Judicial Committee (Dissenting Opinions) Order 1966,dissenting opinions have been allowed.
The Judicial Committee is not bound by its own previous decisions, but may depart from them in exceptional circumstances if following its previous decisions would be unjust or contrary to public policy.[40]
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is based in London. From its establishment to 2009, it mainly met in thePrivy Council Chamber inDowning Street, although increase in the Judicial Committee's business in the twentieth century required it to sit simultaneously in several panels, which met elsewhere. The Chamber, designed byJohn Soane, was often criticised for its interior design, and was extensively remodelled in 1845 bySir Charles Barry.[3] On 1 October 2009, the Judicial Committee moved to the formerMiddlesex Guildhall building, which had been refurbished in 2007 to provide a home for both the JCPC and the newly createdSupreme Court of the United Kingdom. In this renovated building, Court 3 is used for Privy Council sittings.
In recent years, the Judicial Committee has occasionally sat outside of London. Between 2005 and 2010 it sat twice in Mauritius and three times in the Bahamas.
Initially, allCommonwealth realms and their territories maintained a right of appeal to the Privy Council. Many of thoseCommonwealth countries that became republics, or which had indigenous monarchies, preserved the Judicial Committee's jurisdiction by agreement with the United Kingdom. However, retention of a right of appeal to a court located overseas, made up mostly of British judges who may be out of tune with local values, has often come to be seen as incompatible with notions of an independent nation's sovereign status, and so a number of Commonwealth members have ended the right of appeal from their jurisdiction. TheBalfour Declaration of 1926, while not considered to belex scripta, severely limited the conditions under which the Judicial Committee might hear cases:[41]
From these discussions it was clear that it was no part of the policy of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain that questions affecting judicial appeals should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the wishes of the part of the Empire primarily affected
In 1901, theConstitution of Australia limited appeals from the new federalHigh Court of Australia to the Privy Council, by prohibiting appeals on constitutional matters unless leave is granted by the High Court oninter se questions. Appeals on non-constitutional matters were not prohibited, but the federalParliament of Australia had the power to legislate to limit them. The right of appeal from federal courts (including territory supreme courts) was abolished through the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968.[42][43] Appeals from state courts, a continuation of the right to appeal decisions of colonial courts before 1901, continued, until they were also abolished by theAustralia Act 1986, which was enacted by both the UK and Australian parliaments, on the request of all the state governments. TheAustralian Constitution retains the provision allowing theHigh Court of Australia to permit appeals to the Privy Council oninter se questions. However, the only time such permission was given was in 1912[44] and the High Court has stated that it will not grant it again, since the jurisdiction to do so "has long since been spent", and it is obsolete.[45]
Canada created its ownSupreme Court in 1875 and abolished appeals to the Privy Council in criminal cases in 1933.[46] Despite this, some decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada went on to appeal in the JCPC, including notably thePersons Case (Edwards v Canada (AG)), which affirmed that women had always been "qualified persons" under theBritish North America Act, 1867 (Canada'sConstitution) eligible to sit in theSenate of Canada. In this case, it also used a metaphor in theobiter dicta, later reinterpreted and employed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1980s to establish what came to be known as the "living tree doctrine" in Canadian Constitutional law, which says that a constitution is organic and must be read in a broad and liberal manner so as to adapt it to changing times.
In 1949, all appeals to the Privy Council were abolished, but prior to this, there were several factors that served to limit the effectiveness of measures to reduce appeals:
Nadan, together with theKing–Byng Affair, was a major irritant for Canada and provoked the discussion at the1926 Imperial Conference which led to theBalfour Declaration, which declared the United Kingdom and thedominions to be
... autonomous Communities within theBritish Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance tothe Crown, and freely associated as members of the BritishCommonwealth of Nations.
With that Declaration and its statutory confirmation in theStatute of Westminster 1931 (Imp, 22–23 Geo 5, c.4)[49] the impediment to abolishing appeals to the Privy Council, whether or not it had been legitimate, was comprehensively removed. Criminal appeals to the Privy Council were ended in 1933. Moves to extend the abolition to civil matters were shelved during the growing international crisis of the 1930s but re-tabled after theSecond World War, and civil appeals ended in 1949, with an amendment of the Supreme Court Act.[50] Cases begun before 1949 were still allowed to appeal after 1949, and the final case to make it to the Council was not until 1959 with the case ofPonoka-Calmar Oils v Wakefield.[51]
The JCPC played a controversial role in the evolution of Canadianfederalism in that, whereas some Fathers of Confederation in negotiating the union of the British North American colonies against the backdrop of the American Civil War wished to ensure a strong central government vis-à-vis relatively weak provinces, appeals to the JCPC in constitutional matters progressively shifted the balance in favour of the provinces.[52] While a few commentators have suggested that CanadianFirst Nations retain the right to appeal to the Privy Council because their treaties predate their relationship to Canada, the JCPC has not entertained any such appeal since 1867 and the dominant view is that no such appeal right exists.[53]
The nations of theCaribbean Community voted in 2001 to abolish the right of appeal to the Privy Council in favour of aCaribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). Some debate between member countries and also the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council[54][55] had repeatedly delayed the court's date of inauguration. As of 2005,Barbados replaced the process of appeals to Her Majesty in Council with the CCJ, which had then come into operation. TheCo-operative Republic of Guyana also enacted local legislation allowing the CCJ to have jurisdiction over their sovereign final court of appeals system.Belize acceded to the Appellate Jurisdiction of the CCJ on 1 June 2010. As it stands, a few other CARICOM states appear to be ready for the abolition of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the immediate future. The government ofJamaica in particular had come close and attempted to abolish appeals to the Judicial Committee without the support of the opposition in Parliament; however, it was ruled by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that the procedure used in Jamaica to bypass the opposition was incorrect and unconstitutional.[56] Another attempt will also be forthcoming.[57]
Caribbean governments have been coming under increased pressure from their electorates[58] to devise ways to override previous rulings by the JCPC such asPratt v A-G (Jamaica, 1993),[59]R v Hughes (Saint Lucia, 2002),Fox v R (Saint Kitts and Nevis, 2002),Reyes v R (2002, Belize),Boyce v R (Barbados, 2004), andMatthew v S (Trinidad and Tobago, 2004), all of which are Privy Council judgments concerning the death penalty in the Caribbean region.[60][61][62]
The then President of theSupreme Court of the United Kingdom,Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, has voiced displeasure withCaribbean and otherCommonwealth countries continuing to rely on the British JCPC. During an interview Lord Phillips was quoted by theFinancial Times as saying that"'in an ideal world' Commonwealth countries—including those in the Caribbean—would stop using the Privy Council and set up their own final courts of appeal instead".[63]
On 18 December 2006, the Judicial Committee made history when for the first time in more than 170 years it ventured outside London, holding a five-day sitting inthe Bahamas. Lords Bingham, Brown, Carswell, and Scott, and Baroness Hale of Richmond, travelled to the Bahamas for the special sitting at the invitation ofDame Joan Sawyer, then thePresident of the Court of Appeal of the Bahamas;[64] the Committee returned to the Bahamas in December 2007 for a second sitting. On the latter occasion, Lords Hope, Rodger, Walker, and Mance, and Sir Christopher Rose, heard several cases. At the end of the sitting, Lord Hope indicated that there may be future sittings of the Committee in the Bahamas,[65] and the Committee has indeed sat in the Bahamas again, in 2009.[66]
The2018 Antiguan constitutional referendum saw the proposal to replace the JCPC with the CCJ rejected by a 52.04% majority.
On 28 February 2023, the parliament of Saint Lucia approved the Constitution of St Lucia Amendment Bill 2023, which would replace the JCPC with the CCJ.[67]
An injunction against Saint Lucia's accession to the CCJ was filed on 3 March 2023 against the bill in theEastern Caribbean Supreme Court in the High Court of Justice of Saint Lucia, and is currently pending.[68]
Sri Lanka, formerlyCeylon, abolished appeals to the Privy Council under the Court of Appeal Act, 1971, which came into effect on 15 November 1971.[69] Previously, the Privy Council had ruled inIbralebbe v The Queen that it remained the highest court of appeal in Ceylon notwithstanding thecountry's independence as adominion in 1948.[70]
The Gambia retained the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under theGambia Independence Act 1964, even after The Gambia became a republic in the Commonwealth of Nations in April 1970 underSir Dawda Jawara. Appeals were still taken to the JCPC from 1994 to 1998, whenYahya Jammeh, the then dictator andPresident of the Gambia decided to restructure theGambian judiciary under the 1997Constitution of the Gambia to replace the JCPC with theSupreme Court of the Gambia.
The last case from The Gambia to the JCPC wasWest Coast Air Limited v. Gambia Civil Aviation Authority and Others UKPC 39 (15 September 1998).[71]
Grenadian appeals to the Privy Council were temporarily abolished from 1979 until 1991, as a result of theGrenadian Revolution, which brought Prime MinisterMaurice Bishop to power.People's Law 84 was enacted to this effect. In 1985,Mitchell v DPP affirmed Grenada's right to unilaterally abolish appeals to the Privy Council. In 1991, Grenada restored the JCPC's jurisdiction.
In 2016, there was a proposal in the2016 Grenadian constitutional referendum to terminate appeals from Grenada to the JCPC and to replace the JCPC with theCaribbean Court of Justice. This was rejected by a 56.73% majority, which means the JCPC remains Grenada's highest court.
Another referendum, the2018 Grenadian constitutional referendum also rejected terminating appeals to the JCPC by a 55.2% majority.
Guyana retained the right of appeal to the Privy Council until the government of Prime MinisterForbes Burnham passed the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (Termination of Appeals) Act 1970 and the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1973.
Hong Kong's court system changed following thetransfer of sovereignty from the United Kingdom toChina on 1 July 1997, with theCourt of Final Appeal serving as the highest judicial authority of theSpecial Administrative Region (SAR), and (pursuant to Article 158 of theBasic Law, the constitutional instrument of the SAR) the power of final interpretation vested not in the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong but in theStanding Committee of the National People's Congress of China, which, unlike the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, is a political, legislative body rather than an independent and impartial tribunal of last resort.
Decisions of the Privy Council on Hong Kong appeals before 1 July 1997 remain binding on the courts of Hong Kong. This accords with the principle of continuity of the legal system enshrined in Article 8 of the Basic Law. Decisions of the Privy Council on non-Hong Kong appeals are of persuasive authority only. Such decisions were not binding on the courts in Hong Kong under the doctrine of precedent before 1 July 1997 and are not binding today. Decisions of the House of Lords before 1 July 1997 stand in a similar position. It is of the greatest importance that the courts of Hong Kong should derive assistance from overseas jurisprudence, particularly from the final appellate courts of other common law jurisdictions. This is recognised by Article 84 of the Basic Law.[72][73]
India retained the right of appeal from theFederal Court of India to the Privy Council after the establishment of theDominion of India. Following the replacement of the Federal Court with theSupreme Court of India in January 1950, the Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act 1949 came into effect, ending the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The right of appeal to the Privy Council was provided for in theConstitution of the Irish Free State until its abolition in 1933 by an Act of theOireachtas of the Irish Free State, amending said constitution.[74]
InMoore v Attorney-General of the Irish Free State[75] the right of the Oireachtas to abolish appeals to the Privy Council was challenged as a violation of the 1921Anglo-Irish Treaty.[76] The thenAttorney General for England and Wales (Sir Thomas Inskip) is reported to have warned the thenAttorney-General of the Irish Free State (Conor Maguire) that theIrish Free State had no right to abolish appeals to the Privy Council.[76] The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council itself ruled that theIrish Free State Government had that right under theStatute of Westminster 1931 (Imp.).[76]
In May 2015, the JamaicanHouse of Representatives approved, with the necessary two-thirds majority, bills to end legal appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and make theCaribbean Court of Justice Jamaica's final court of appeal. The reform will be debated by the Jamaican Senate; however, the government needed the support of at least one opposition Senator for the measures to be approved by the required two-thirds majority.[77][78] The2016 general election was called before the reforms could be brought to the Senate for a final vote. The Jamaican Labour Party, which opposed the changes, won the election and has promised to hold a referendum on the issue.[79][needs update]
Malaysia abolished appeals to the Privy Council in criminal and constitutional matters in 1978,[80] and in civil matters in 1984.[81]
New Zealand was the last of the originaldominions to remove appeals to the Privy Council from its legal system. Proposals to abolish appeals to the Privy Council in New Zealand were first put forward in the early 1980s.[82]
The Privy Council's respect for local decisions was noted byLord Brightman in 1985 in regard to the possible adoption of a New Zealand decision, in the case ofArcher v. Cutler (1980), as a precedent,[a] where he stated that:
IfArcher v. Cutler is properly to be regarded as a decision based on considerations peculiar to New Zealand, it is highly improbable that their Lordships would think it right to impose their own interpretation of the law, thereby contradicting the unanimous conclusions of theHigh Court and theCourt of Appeal of New Zealand on a matter of local significance. If, however, the principle ofArcher v. Cutler, if it be correct, must be regarded as having general application throughout all jurisdictions based on the common law, because it does not depend on local considerations, their Lordships could not properly treat the unanimous view of the courts of New Zealand as being necessarily decisive.[83]
In October 2003, with respect to all cases heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, New Zealand law was changed to abolish appeals to the Privy Council, after the end of 2003. The old system was replaced by theSupreme Court of New Zealand. In 2008, Prime MinisterJohn Key ruled out any abolition of the Supreme Court and return to the Privy Council.[84]
However, judgment on the last appeal from New Zealand to be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was not delivered until 3 March 2015.[85][86][87]
Newfoundland was one of the original Dominions, recognised in theBalfour Declaration and theStatute of Westminster 1931. Like the other Dominions, an appeal lay from the Newfoundland courts to the Judicial Committee.
In 1949, Newfoundland joined Canada as the tenth province. Like other provinces, an appeal continued to lie from the Newfoundland courts to the Judicial Committee. In late 1949, the federal Parliament abolished appeals to the Judicial Committee from courts in Canada, making the Supreme Court of Canada the final court of appeal. Cases started prior to the abolition could still be appealed to the Judicial Committee, but it does not appear that there were any cases from Newfoundland to the Judicial Committee after 1949.
TheDominion of Pakistan retained the right of appeal to the Privy Council from theFederal Court of Pakistan until the Privy Council (Abolition of Jurisdiction) Act, 1950 was passed. The Federal Court ofPakistan remained the highest court until 1956, when theSupreme Court of Pakistan was established.
Despite theRhodesian Constitution of 1965 coming into effect as a result of theUnilateral Declaration of Independence, appeals continued to be accepted by the Privy Council as late as 1969 due to the fact that under international law,Rhodesia remained a British colony until gaining its independence asZimbabwe in April 1980.
Singapore abolished Privy Council appeals in all cases save those involving thedeath penalty, or in civil cases where the parties had agreed to such a right of appeal, in 1989. The remaining rights of appeal were abolished in April 1994.
One notable case in Singapore where an appeal against the death sentence was allowed by the Privy Council wasa murder case that occurred in Pulau Ubin between 22 and 23 April 1972. In this case, Mohamed Yasin bin Hussein, who was 19 at the time of the murder, was sentenced to death by theHigh Court for murdering and raping a 58-year-old woman named Poon Sai Imm, while his 25-year-old accomplice Harun bin Ripin went to ransack the elderly woman's house for items to rob (Harun, who also stood trial for murder together with Yasin, was instead sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment and received 12 strokes of the cane for a lesser charge of robbery at night). The Privy Council found that there was no evidence to show that Yasin had intended to cause death or any fatal bodily injury when he caused the fatal rib fractures on Poon while raping the struggling victim. As such, they found him guilty of committing a rash/negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. Following this appeal, Yasin was brought back to court to be charged with rape, and he was eventually jailed for another eight years for the attempted rape of the victim.[88]
Another notable case heard by the Privy Council was the case ofHaw Tua Tau, a hawker who was sentenced to death in 1978 for the double murder of two hawkers, Phoon Ah Leong and his mother Hu Yuen Keng.[89] After his appeal was dismissed,[90] Haw was granted special leave to appeal to the Privy Council against his sentence and conviction, but his appeal was dismissed by the Privy Council, which issued a landmark ruling that decreed the prosecution shall be allowed to present its case against an accused in court, as long as there is sufficient evidence to back a charge against the accused and hence present a case for the accused to answer.[91] After losing his final appeal, Haw was eventually hanged in 1982 for the hawker killings.[92]
South Africa abolished the right of appeal to the Privy Council from theAppellate Division of the then Supreme Court of South Africa in 1950 under the terms of the Privy Council Appeals Act, 1950.
| Positions | .svg) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Membership |
| ||||
| Committees of the Privy Council |
| ||||
| Other | |||||
| See also | |||||
