The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions

Privy Council Appeal

 

Keiron ThomasPetitioner

v.

The State Respondent

 

FROM

 

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC

OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

 

---------------

ORAL JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL,

UPON A PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO

APPEAL AS A POOR PERSON,

Delivered the 6th November 1997

------------------

 

Present at the hearing:-

Lord Browne-Wilkinson

Lord Hutton

Mr. Justice Gault

  ·[Delivered by Lord Browne-Wilkinson]

 

-------------------------

 

1. This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago which dismissed an appeal against conviction by the petitioner, Keiron Thomas, at the Port of Spain Assizes where he was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death.

 

2. Before the Board the petitioner on this petition for leave has been represented by Mr. Geoffrey Nice Q.C. and Mr. Darryl Allen who have developed such points as they can on the petitioner's behalf.  It is unnecessary for their Lordships to go into the details of those points.  With one exception, their Lordships can see no substance in the petition for leave to appeal and would refuse it.

 

3. The one matter that has caused their Lordships to pause is this.  When the matter was before the Court of Appeal in Trinidad  and  Tobago, counsel announced his appearance on behalf of the petitioner and then sought the leave of the Court of Appeal to withdraw.  He told the Court of Appeal that he had been retained by the Legal Aid and Advisory Authority, who represented the petitioner, and having studied the summing up very carefully concluded that he was unable to put forward anything of substance before the court.  He told the Court of Appeal that he had so informed the petitioner who had then instructed him in writing to return the brief to enable him to retain other counsel.  The Court of Appeal refused to give counsel leave to withdraw.

 

4. Their Lordships are conscious that there may be more to these matters than appears from that short account, in particular the status of counsel as being retained by the Legal Aid and Advisory Authority and the possible abuse of procedures in seeking to withdraw instructions at the last moment.

 

5. Their Lordships understand that in this case instructions had indeed been withdrawn from counsel, who appeared before the Court of Appeal, and steps had been taken to instruct other counsel.  Their Lordships are concerned that the petitioner did not have an opportunity either in person or through alternative counsel to put before the Court of Appeal any point that he might have sought to have raised.  In their Lordships' view that was undesirable when the petitioner had in terms instructed counsel to return the brief.  Counsel had no authority to announce himself as appearing on behalf of the petitioner and their Lordships hope that in future cases, if the court is informed that instructions have been given to return the brief, the Court of Appeal will give the petitioner either the opportunity to address them himself or an opportunity to instruct alternative counsel.

 

6. That said, their Lordships can see no ground on which any appeal to this court could succeed and their Lordships will dismiss the petition.

 

© CROWN COPYRIGHT as at the date of judgment.