Re Richards

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Singh, J.,Satrohan Singh
• Judgment Date: 06 February 1992
• Neutral Citation: KN 1992 HC 1
• Docket Number: Misc. Suit No. 13 of 1992
• Date: 06 February 1992

High Court

Satrohan Singh, J.

Misc. Suit No. 13 of 1992

Richards, Re

Appearances:

Mr. Lee Moore, Dr. Henry Browne and Miss Angella Inniss with him for the applicant

Mr. Hugh Rawlins, Solicitor General for the crown

Constitutional law - Appellant convicted of murder and sentenced to death by hanging — Motion for declaration that sentence of death by hanging was in contravention of his fundamental rights — Whether sentence of death unconstitutional — Whether hanging was inhuman and degrading — Whether existing law preserved the right to pass sentence by hanging.

Singh, J.

1 On April 10, 1873, the Offences Against the Person Act was made law in this country and it is to be found at Cap. 56 of the Revised Laws of St. Christopher and Nevis.

2 s.2 of this law needs as follows:

“Whoever is convicted of murder shall suffer death as a felon”.

s.3(1) states:

“Upon every conviction for Murder, the court shall pronounce sentence of death, and the same may be carried into execution …”.

and s.. 3(2) provides thus:–

“The Governor General shall direct the time and place for the execution of the sentence of death on persons convicted of Murder, and the Provost Marshall shall cause the body of such murderer to be buried in such place as the Governor General may approve”.

3 On May 22, 1991, before this court, sitting in its Criminal Jurisdiction, the applicant Bernard Richards was convicted of Murder and sentences to death as a felon by hanging. He did not appeal from this conviction.

4 By letter dated November 11, 1991, the applicant's legal advisor Miss Angella Inniss, petitioned the Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy for a commutation of the sentence of death.

5 On January 13, 1992, the Advisory Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy met and having considered the case of the applicant, informed Miss Inniss that the “Committee has advised that the judgment of the court should stand”.

6 The applicant's execution by hanging was fixed to take place on Friday, 7th February 1992.

7 This is a motion filed by applicant on February 1, 1992 for a declaration under s. 7 of the Constitution of Saint Christopher and Nevis. (the Constitution) that the sentence of death proposed to be carried out upon him by handing is in contravention of his fundamental right under s. 7 of the Constitution in that the said punishment is inhuman and degrading and for an order restraining the Superintendent of Her Majesty's Prison by himself, his servant on agent or in anywise whatsoever from carrying out the punishment.

8 The application is supported by an affidavit from the applicant in which he states inter alia that the months he has been waiting have been very burdensome and the delay has caused him much pain and anguish. He submits in his affidavit that the carrying out of the sentence in the circumstances of the delay and bearing in mind that there has been no such execution in the country since 1985 and that there are four (4) other persons in the prison who have been sentences to death and whose sentences have been commuted, would be on inhuman and degrading punishment, degrading not only to his life but the life and humanity of the person who carries out the execution and also to members of the applicant's family.

9 The court gleans from this affidavit of the applicant that in the circumstances of this case he is not saying that death by hanging per se is degrading on inhuman thereby offending the provisions of s. 7 of the Constitution but when done in the circumstances as stated in his affidavit mentioned above then it is degrading and inhuman not only to himself but also to his family and the executioner.

10 However, at the hearing of the matter, Mr. Moore did not pursue the application on this ground.

11 As I understand Mr. Moore's arguments he has no complaint against the constitutionality of the sentence of death. Indeed, he concedes such constitutionality especially when the Constitution itself by implication sanctions such a penalty at s. 4(1) which states as follows:– “A person shall not be deprived of his life intentionally save in execution of the sentence of the court in respect of a criminal offence of treason or...