Thursday, August 17, 2006

by Caroline Byrne

LONDON, England (Bloomberg): Britain's Privy Council judges, rulers of overseas disputes since medieval times, received just 71 appeals from former colonies and territories last year as their importance wanes.

While judges have had the final say on everything from Jamaica's death penalty to a hydroelectric dam in a Belize rainforest, they are being sidelined in favor of the local judiciary, according to figures in a U.K. government analysis on August 14. The numbers have fallen since 2001 when 102 appeals and 58 applications for special leave to appeal were filed. Last year, 71 appeals and 38 petitions for special leave were filed.

Four years ago, New Zealand was the biggest source of appeals, accounting for 14 of the 103 cases filed to the Privy Council. In 2003, the nation voted to abolish further Privy Council appeals and only three remain outstanding, the report said. Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia and Malaysia have also stopped seeking guidance from the court.

"It's inevitable. Basically people are becoming more independent," said Michael Beloff QC, a barrister and former president of Oxford University's Trinity College who recently argued a Bahamas golf development dispute before the judges.

Caribbean nations including Jamaica formed their own court last year when Trinidad and Tobago-based judges replaced the Privy Council's Judicial Committee, according to the Caribbean court's Web site.

Brunei Civil Disputes Privy Council judges, who may serve until age 75, also hear Brunei civil disputes under an agreement with the Sultan of Brunei, although there were no appeals last year.

"Many of these societies have developed slightly different cultural and political norms, so the law has developed in different ways," Beloff said.

The largest number of the Privy Council's cases still comes from the U.K., where it is responsible for final rulings in veterinary and ecclesiastical disputes. It also issues advisory opinions in some criminal cases.

Privy Council judges are drawn from around the Commonwealth, including British Law Lords and Court of Appeal judges, plus 15 overseas members from superior courts, according to the Privy Council's Web site.

The Judicial Committee was created in its current incarnation under an 1833 statute. In medieval times, the ruler of England sought the Privy Council's advice on disputes arising in the Channel Islands, and appeals concerning the islands continue today, according to the report.

The goal in 1833 was to bind the Commonwealth countries together with the same judicial ideals, Beloff said.

"It never caught fire," he said, noting that the judges ended up ruling on disciplinary hearings for New Zealand doctors alongside constitutional cases.

While judges anticipate "an eventual decline in the Judicial Committee's volume of work," according to the report, the Privy Council has yet to feel any impact from the New Zealand or Caribbean decisions to go their own way, Kasia Reardon, senior press officer for the Privy Council, said in an e-mail yesterday.

"There may be a decline in the Judicial Committee's volume," Reardon said. "But looking at last year's statistics the Committee sat for 106 days, an increase on 2004." Cases range from life and death to small fines. In July
2005, a nine-member panel ruled that Jamaica's mandatory death penalty for murder was inhumane and contrary to the constitution, requiring all capital murder cases include sentencing hearings.

In July 2004, judges also weighed in on a 750 pound ($1,422) dispute between a British veterinarian disciplined for driving offences and the London-based Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

It is no wonder some countries think it is more sensible for the local judiciary to decide what is right for the community they live in, Beloff said. While the number of appeals to the Privy Council may decline, Beloff said the Judicial Committee will continue to have influence in some nations.

"It is difficult to imagine the Channel Islands" going their own way, Beloff said. "I suppose it's possible for them to decide their own court is sufficient, but I suspect in a small jurisdiction they like going to a higher body."

  Most popular articles: viewed, printed and e-mailed

  Printable version