IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT NO. 60 OF And
|
|
- Julian McDowell
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No.: CV IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT NO. 60 OF 2000 And IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY STEVE FERGUSON AND ISHWAR GALBARANSINGH FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE DECISION OF HIS WORSHIP CHIEF MAGISTRATE SHERMAN MC NICOLLS MADE ON THE 14 TH OF JULY 2008 COMMITTING THEM TO CUSTODY TO AWAIT THEIR EXTRADITION TO THE UNITED STATES Between STEVE FERGUSON And ISHWAR GALBARANSINGH Applicants/Intended Claimants And HIS WORSHIP MR. SHERMAN MC NICOLLS, CHIEF MAGISTRATE Intended Respondent/Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GREGORY DELZIN APPEARANCES: Mr. Steve Ferguson in person Ms. Hemlaxmi Singh for the 2 nd Applicants/Intended Claimants Mr. David West and Mr. Quincy Marshall for the Intended Respondent/Defendant Page 1 of 16
2 JUDGMENT This is an application for leave for Judicial Review filed on the 19 th September, 2008 where the parties seek to impunge the Order for extradition under the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act, Chapter 12:04. Inter alia, the parties seek an Order of certiorari quashing the Warrant of Committal issued by the Chief Magistrate on the 14 th July, The Claimants further submit that the refusal of the Magistrate to grant a stay of proceedings was unreasonable, illegal, irrational and disproportionate. By the Application, the Claimants also seek for an Order that bail granted by Mr. Justice Brook be continued until the hearing and determination of this matter. By Affidavits filed herein, the Claimants depose to the fact that on the 23 rd July, 2008, the Claimant challenged the validity of the Warrant of Committal by way of an application for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Subjudciendum. On the 30 th July, 2008, the Claimants depose to appearances before Madame Justice Pemberton and that hearing of the habeas corpus application was set down for the 10 th July, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. Accordingly, there are now pending before the High Court two (2) separate Claims filed and being conducted before different judges seeking to impunge the Warrant of Committal. Page 2 of 16
3 The Application for Leave on the Judicial Review application came on before me on the 2 nd October, 2008 and was adjourned to Monday 6 th October, 2008 to allow for service of the documents on the Intended Respondent, in accordance with the Order of Mr. Justice Jamadar who had previous conduct of these proceedings. Importantly, the Claimants have deposed to the fact that the cause for separate Judicial Review proceedings having been filed was an expression of concern of Pemberton J. over the choice of challenge at the initial hearing of the habeas corpus application - (See paragraph 12 of the Claimants Affidavit). THE LAW S.9 of the Judicial Review Act, Ch. 7:08 states as follows: The Court shall not grant leave to an application for Judicial Review of a decision where any other written law provides an alternative procedure to question, review or appeal that decision, save in exceptional circumstances. In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Swati [1986]. WLR 477 at 485 C, Sir John Donaldson MR stated: By definition, exceptional circumstances defy definition, but where Parliament provides an appeal procedure, Judicial Review will have no place, unless the Applicant can distinguish his Page 3 of 16
4 case from the type of case for which the appeal procedure was provided. In Ex parte Waldron [1985] WLR 1090, 1108, exceptional circumstances were defined by Glidewell CJ, in the following terms: whether the alternative statutory remedy will resolve the question at issue fully and directly; whether the statutory procedure would be quicker or slower, than procedure by way of Judicial Review; whether the matter depends on some particular or technical knowledge which is more readily available to the alternative appellate body; these are amongst the matters which a Court should take into account when deciding whether to grant relief by Judicial Review when an alternative remedy is available. CHAPTER 12:04. EXTRADITION (COMMONWEALTH AND FOREIGN TERRITORIES) ACT PART III. EXTRADITION FROM TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO S. 13. Application for habeas corpus (1) The Magistrate shall, on committing any person to custody under section 12, inform that Page 4 of 16
5 person in ordinary language of his right to make an application to the High Court for habeas corpus and shall forthwith give notice of the committal to the Attorney General. (2) A person committed to custody under section 12 shall not be returned under this Act-- (a) until the expiration of the period of fifteen days beginning with the day on which the order for his committal is made, unless he waives, in writing, the entire period or any part thereof; (b) if an application for habeas corpus is made in his case, so long as proceedings on that application are pending. (3) On any such application made under this section the High Court may, without prejudice to any other jurisdiction of the High Court, order the person committed to be discharged from custody if it appears to the High Court that by reason of-- (a) in the case of a declared Commonwealth territory, the trivial nature of the extraditable offence of which he is accused or was convicted; and (b) in the case of a declared Commonwealth or foreign territory-- (i) the passage of time since he is alleged to have committed the extraditable offence or to have become unlawfully at large, as the case may be; Page 5 of 16
6 (ii) the accusation against him not having been made in good faith in the interests of justice; or (iii) any other sufficient cause, it would, having regard to all the circumstances, be unjust or oppressive to return the person. (4) On any such application the High Court may receive additional evidence relevant to the exercise of its jurisdiction under section 8 or under subsection (3). (5) For the purposes of this section, proceedings on an application for habeas corpus shall be treated as pending until any appeal in those proceedings is disposed of; and an appeal shall be treated as disposed of at the expiration of the time within which the appeal may be brought or, where leave to appeal is required, within which the application for leave may be made, if the appeal is not brought or the application made within that time. S.13 of the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act Ch 12:04 thus provides a procedure by way of review/appeal against a committal order and specifically requires the Magistrate to inform the accused of his right to make an application for habeas corpus. Page 6 of 16
7 S.13 (3) b (iii) the High Court in considering such an application in relation to a foreign territory, is required to consider.... any other sufficient cause.... that would, having regard to all of the circumstances, render it unjust or oppressive to return to prison. Further by S.13 (4) the High Court is empowered to receive additional evidence relevant to the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 8 or under Subsection (3). At the hearing of the Application for leave I submitted to the Claimants and Mr. West who represented the Intended Respondent, copies of two (2) authorities: Gibson v Government of the United States [2007] 1 WLR 2367 Nikonovs v Governor of Brixton Prisons and others [2006] 1 WLR 1518 and sought their views in relation thereto. In the Nikonovs decision, the Court held that habeas corpus was an available remedy where the judge s decision on extradition was unreasonable or irrational. At page 1522 para 19 the Court commented as follows: In Lunett v Coles [1987] QB 555, 561, Lewton J said that a Writ of Habeas Corpus was probably the most cherished sacred cow in the British Constitution, but the law had never allowed it to graze in all legal pastures. However the one Page 7 of 16
8 legal pasture in which it has grazed freely for many years is extradition. In the Gibson decision, habeas corpus proceedings were brought to challenge a Magistrate s Order. The judge at the hearing raised an issue as to whether certiorari was a more appropriate remedy and granted leave to add Judicial Review. The judge granted a Writ of Habeas Corpus without determining the certiorari issue. Bahamian Law did not allow an appeal on a habeas corpus application. The Privy Council held that on an application for habeas corpus in extradition proceedings a Court was not confined to a review of the formal validity of the Committal Order so that an application for certiorari was not necessary for an inquiry into the substantial merits of the order. At pages of the judgment the issue is discussed in detail. However, I think it only necessary as this point to refer to paragraph 20 of the judgment which alludes to the wide scope of a habeas corpus application in extradition proceeding as expressed in Ex parte Armah [1968] AC 192. The Privy Council also accepted a passage from Wade and Forsyth, Administrative Law, 9 th Edition (2004) at p 597, footnote 52. At one time the prisoner would have had to obtain certiorari to quash the detention order at the same time as habeas corpus to secure his release in order to succeed on this ground [any ground other than the ground of detention stated in the return to the Writ]. But to insist upon a separate certiorari was pointless formalism, since habeas corpus brought the whole question of the validity of the detention before the Court..... If error of law then appeared, habeas Page 8 of 16
9 corpus would be granted, thus in effect quashing the order. Accordingly, there is no bar, in my respectful view, to the Claimants seeking leave to read and use the affidavits filed in support of this application for leave, in the habeas corpus application set for the 10 th October The State cannot oppose the application, in the light of their undertaking, (detailed below at pages 12-13). The affidavit will therefore allow the full ventilation of all the issues, thereby avoiding the pointless formalism invoked by separate applications. In the context of the above statements and cases, I must also consider the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 1998 at Rule 1 including dealing with the case before me in a manner that achieves expedition and which allots an appropriate share of the Court s resources while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases. I am further required by Rule 1.2 to exercise any discretion given to the Court under the rules to give effect to the overriding objective. CONCLUSION I can therefore draw the following conclusions on the law: 1. S.13 (3) of the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act Ch 12:04 is part of a statutory scheme that creates a procedure that allows the Claimants to question, review or appeal the issuance of a Warrant of Committal under the said Act. Page 9 of 16
10 2. The Claimants exercised their right under the said Act and appealed to the High Court thereby invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court to consider the discharge of the Claimants from custody. 3. The specific wording of S.13 (3) (b) allows the Court to consider in addition to the passage of time [ (3(b)(i) ]; and lack of good faith on the part of the accusers [ (3(b)(ii) ]; any other sufficient cause [ (3(b)(iii) ] [emphasis mine], in determining whether it would be unjust or oppressive to return the person to custody. Accordingly, it is clear that the Court in determining an application for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus under the Act, is only restricted in its consideration of unjust or oppressive conduct by the foregoing elements of (3(b)(i), (ii) and (iii) in relation to a foreign territory. 4. Questions of fundamental unfairness, irrationality, unreasonableness and illegality all involve a challenge to the legal validity of a decision (See Reid v Secretary of State for Scotland [1999] 2 AC 512, 541 F - 542A). Judicial review involves a challenge to the legal validity of the decision. It does not allow the court of review to examine the evidence with a view to forming its own view about the substantial merits of the case. It may be that the tribunal whose decision is being challenged has done something which it had no lawful authority to do. It may have abused or misused the authority which it had. It may have departed from the procedures which either by statute or at common law as a matter of fairness it ought to have observed. As regards the decision itself it may be found to be perverse, or irrational, or grossly disproportionate to what was required. Or the decision may be found to be erroneous in respect Page 10 of 16
11 of a legal deficiency, as for example, through the absence of evidence, or of sufficient evidence, to support it, or through account being taken of irrelevant matter, or through a failure for any reason to take account of a relevant matter, or through some misconstruction of the terms of the statutory provision which the decision-maker is required to apply. But while the evidence may have to be explored in order to see if the decision is vitiated by such legal deficiencies it is perfectly clear that in a case of review, as distinct from an ordinary appeal, the court may not set about forming its own preferred view of the evidence. These principles are quite clear. But having been invited to examine some of the evidence by the petitioner it seems to me that the judges in the Second Division went further than was appropriate in the analysis and assessment of it. The sheriff heard the oral evidence of seven psychiatrists as well as the petitioner. He also had written reports from the psychiatrists and these were put before the Second Division. But in the summary procedure which was used there was no record made of the oral evidence beyond the brief account which the sheriff gives of the material before him. Where one only has an incomplete record of the evidence and the evidence is that of highly qualified experts dealing with the delicate matter of mental disorder, great caution ought to be taken in revisiting the substance of the decision which the sheriff reached. In the circumstances of the present case it seems to me to be particularly difficult to conclude that there was truly no evidence to support the conclusion which was reached or that the conclusion was perverse. 5. The quotation from Reid above highlights two important points in relation to this application. It emphasizes the limited nature of the judicial review jurisdiction and by comparison to S.13,the breadth of considerations that fall under the S. 13 application in Extradition proceedings. In other words an application under S. 13 of the said Act does not confine the Claimants to judicial review considerations or remedies. It is thus clear that the legal validity of a decision would only be one of the issues that fall under the rubric of any other sufficient cause in the Act. The language of section 13 Page 11 of 16
12 contemplates not only judicial review challenges inter alia but also constitutional arguments. The process admits to speed, efficiency and due process. 6. The case law to which I have referred, all accept that a habeas corpus application is not confined to a review of the formal validity of the detention order. Further the Nikonovs and the Gibson decisions both confirm that questions of certiorari, irrationality and unreasonableness are matter to be considered in a habeas corpus application. 7. It is therefore clear, that s.13 of the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act Ch 12:04 creates not only an appellate or review procedure to a Warrant of Committal under the Act but also, in the light of the breadth of the language in s.13, an alternative remedy contemplated by s.9 of the Judicial Review Act Ch 7: Based on the criteria set out in Waldron (supra), I find that the procedures established under S.13 of the said Act will resolve the questions raised by the application for Judicial Review. 9. I also find that the Claimants suffer no prejudice by the pursuit of the habeas corpus application. Indeed the nature of habeas corpus proceedings provide a quicker avenue for the resolution of the issues raised in the Judicial Review application. The habeas corpus application having been filed first in time and since the 23 rd July, 2008, is set down for hearing on 10 th October, A grant of leave in Judicial Page 12 of 16
13 Review sets the time table for a final decision on the issues in reverse and will result in unnecessary and unproductive delay. At the hearing of the leave application on 6 th October, 2008 the Court was informed that the State was consenting to the Claimants withdrawing their application for habeas corpus on 10 th October, 2008 and proceeding with the application for leave before me on an adjourned date with a conjoint application to vary a previous order for bail made in the habeas corpus application. This position conflicts with the intention of the Claimants represented in paragraph 15 of the Affidavit filed on 19 th September, 2008 where the view is expressed that both the habeas corpus and the Judicial Review proceeding ought to be harmonized. Before me, the Claimants expressed an intention to proceed with the Judicial Review to the exclusion of the previously filed habeas corpus application. The Claimants have explained the basis for the decision for the filing of separate Judicial Review proceedings as being an expression of concern by Pemberton J. in the habeas corpus proceeding over the choice of challenge. It is however difficult for me to accept that a judge s expression of concern of choice of challenge (if true), can be translated by the Claimants as a direction that separate Judicial Review proceedings are necessary to ventilate the issues raised by the Claimants. In my respectful view, the duty of the Court and indeed the jurisdiction of the Court is limited to the application before it. Further the question before me, raised by the application of the Claimants is solely an application for leave for Judicial Review and the considerations raised by the law in relation thereto. The question of leave to withdraw the Page 13 of 16
14 application for habeas corpus is for the judge dealing with that application and in my respectful view, I cannot and ought not to fetter the exercise of the Court s discretion by approving a consent order in a matter that is not before me. The same reasoning applies to the question of bail. Further, in the light of my findings that a party may argue Judicial Review issues in an application for habeas corpus, it may well be an abuse of process for parties to engage in what will amount to nothing more than a choice of forum to argue the same substantive issues. There is of course an additional consideration. The overriding objective of the CPR 1998 and the ethos of the CPR mandate a new approach of Court- controlled Case Management with a view to achieving the overriding objective expressed in the Rule 1 of the CPR Accordingly, the management and decision- making process in the management of cases before the Court is now vested by the CPR in the Court and is therefore not within the premise of Counsel or Claimants to enter into arrangements or consent between themselves as to arrangements that affect the conduct and management of cases under the Case Management function of the Court. That is the duty of the Court and the Court is held accountable for the efficient management of the cases filed before it. In these circumstances, the State s consent to the proposed conduct of the proceedings by the Claimants is irrelevant to the proceedings before me. Mr. West, who represented the Intended Respondent, further gave an undertaking to the Court that the State would not oppose the Claimants attempts to argue the issues raised in the application before Page 14 of 16
15 me in the pending habeas corpus application. Therefore, any refusal to grant leave in the current application before me will not prejudice the Claimants in the habeas corpus application in so far as it relates to any opposition from the State on any application to raise the judicial review issues at the habeas corpus application. Mr. Ferguson who represented himself, argued that under Section 7 of the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act Ch 12:04, it was open to the State to institute fresh proceedings if the current Committal Order was discharged. He suggested that one of the objectives of the Judicial Review application was to obtain a declaration preventing the State from issuing further proceedings on the basis of abuse of process. Mr. Ferguson suggested that this particular remedy was not available on the habeas corpus application and therefore could not be classified as an alternative remedy or even if alternative fell under the heading of exceptional circumstances. It is however to be noted that the Claimants application filed on 19 th September, 2008 does not seek such a declaration. In any event, the question under Section 7 of the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act Ch 12:04 only arises if two (2) elements exist (i) the grant of habeas corpus, and; (ii) the institution of further proceedings. Judicial Review is concerned with administrative decisions, the only basis for review would have to be the existence of a grant of habeas corpus and the institution of further proceedings. In the absence of both decisions there is no basis for review. The relief suggested would therefore amount to a contingent declaration which is not known to the law of Judicial Review. Page 15 of 16
16 In the light of the above: (1) No sufficient reasons have been submitted to the Court which require an adjournment of these proceedings; (2) Having reviewed the Affidavits of the Claimants and having heard Counsel for Mr. Galbaransingh and Mr. Ferguson appearing in person, and having heard Counsel representing the Intended Respondent, I refuse the Claimants leave to apply for Judicial Review on the basis that the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act Ch 12:04 provides an alternative procedure to question, review and appeal the decision of the Chief Magistrate to issue Warrant of Committal. I further find that there are no exceptional circumstances in existence. (3) No order as to costs. 07 October 2008 Gregory Delzin Judge Page 16 of 16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between DOREEN ALEXANDER-DURITY. And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. 2013-01303 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between DOREEN ALEXANDER-DURITY Applicant/Intended Claimant And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Respondent/Intended
More informationCHAPTER 96 EXTRADITION ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
[CH.96 1 CHAPTER 96 LIST OF AUTHORISED PAGES 1 14B LRO 1/2006 15 21 Original SECTION ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. 3. Application of the provisions of this
More informationTHE EXTRADITION ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY Section 1. Short title and commencement 2. Interpretation PART II EXTRADITION TO AND
THE EXTRADITION ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY Section 1. Short title and commencement 2. Interpretation PART II EXTRADITION TO AND FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES A. Application of this Part 3.
More informationGOVERNMENT GAZETTE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA
GOVERNMENT GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA N$6.00 WINDHOEK - 31 December 2018 No. 6810 CONTENTS Page GOVERNMENT NOTICE No. 364 Promulgation of Extradition Amendment Act, 2018 (Act No. 19 of 2018), of
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between. And
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV No. 2011-00818 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between SURESH PATEL Claimant And THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Defendant Dated 25 th June, 2013 Before the Honourable Mr.
More information(2) In this Act references to category 1 territories are to the territories designated for the purposes of this Part.
United Kingdom Extradition Act An Act to make provision about extradition. November 20, 2003, Date-In-Force BE IT ENACTED by the Queen s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the
More informationEXTRADITION ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Application of Act
EXTRADITION ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Application of Act SECTION 1. Power to apply Act by order. 2. Application of Act to Commonwealth countries. Restrictions on surrender of fugitives 3. Restrictions
More informationCHAPTER 10:04 FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. PART l PART II
Fugitive Offenders 3 CHAPTER 10:04 FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART l PRELIMINARY SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. PART II GENERAL PROVISIONS 3. Application of this Act in
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2009-01937 BETWEEN PETER LEWIS CLAIMANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANT Before the Honourable Mr. Justice A. des
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN CHARLES MITCHELL APPLICANT AND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION CHIEF FIRE OFFICER PUBLIC SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2008-02391 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN CHARLES MITCHELL APPLICANT AND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION CHIEF FIRE OFFICER PUBLIC SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD AND TRINIDAD
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND THE MINISTEROF LABOUR AND SMALL AND MICRO ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV2006-03499 BETWEEN NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED APPLICANT AND THE MINISTEROF LABOUR AND SMALL AND MICRO ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT
More informationExtradition LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT. Act 479 EXTRADITION ACT 1992
Extradition 1 LAWS OF MALAYSIA REPRINT Act 479 EXTRADITION ACT 1992 Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006 PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAW REVISION, MALAYSIA UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (Sub-Registry-Tobago) BETWEEN AND. Ms. D. Christopher-Noel; Mr. R. Singh and Ms. G. Jackman instructed by Ms. F.
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV. No.2009-02631 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (Sub-Registry-Tobago) BETWEEN VERNON AND REID Claimant HER WORSHIP THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE JOAN GILL Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN JULIANA WEBSTER CLAIMANT AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2011-03158 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN JULIANA WEBSTER CLAIMANT AND REPUBLIC BANK LIMITED PC KAREN RAMSEY #13191 PC KERN PHILLIPS #16295 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO. CV2018-00517 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION BY WINSTON SUTTON (THE SUBJECT OF A WARRANT OF ARREST) FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND AND BETWEEN AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2009-01582 IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT 2000 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INDICTABLE OFFENCES (PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY) ACT
More informationRepublic of Botswana ACT NO. 18 OF Price P2,00. Printed by the Government Printer, Gaborone, Botswana
Republic of Botswana ACT NO. 18 OF 1990 Price P2,00 Printed by the Government Printer, Gaborone, Botswana 1 Supplement A Botswana Government Gazette dated 2nd November, 1990 EXTRADITION ACT, 1990 ARRANGEMENT
More information15A-725. Extradition of persons imprisoned or awaiting trial in another state or who have left the demanding state under compulsion.
Article 37. Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. 15A-721. Definitions. Where appearing in this Article the term "Governor" includes any person performing the functions of Governor by authority of the law
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE BAIL ACT, CHAP. 4:60 OF THE LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE BAIL ACT, CHAP. 4:60 OF THE LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO AND IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTRADITION (COMMONWEALTH AND FOREIGN
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN P.C. CURTIS APPLEWHITE AND
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Cv. #2010-04494 BETWEEN P.C. CURTIS APPLEWHITE Claimant AND THE POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION BASDEO MULCHAN LLOYD CROSBY Defendants BEFORE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between. And. HER WORSHIP SENIOR MAGISTRATE MRS. INDRA RAMOO-HAYNES Defendant
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV 2012-00707 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between ALVIN And AHYEW Claimant HER WORSHIP SENIOR MAGISTRATE MRS. INDRA RAMOO-HAYNES Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D (CIVIL) CLAIM NO. 261 of 2017 BETWEEN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2017 (CIVIL) CLAIM NO. 261 of 2017 BETWEEN MARIA MOGUEL AND Claimant/Counter-Defendant CHRISTINA MOGUEL Defendant/Counter-Claimant Before: The Honourable Madame Justice
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SUB-REGISTRY- SAN FERNANDO AND
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SUB-REGISTRY- SAN FERNANDO Claim No: CV2016-01485 VIJAY SINGH Applicant/Intended Claimant AND THE OMBUDSMAN Respondent/Intended Defendant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN SANJEEV RAMGARIB AND HER WORSHIP MAGISTRATE REHANNA HOSEIN
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV 2015 00266 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN SANJEEV RAMGARIB Applicant AND HER WORSHIP MAGISTRATE REHANNA HOSEIN Respondent Before the Honourable Mr Justice Ronnie
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Cv. #2009/1536 BETWEEN JEFFREY JOHN CLAIMANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANTS BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DEAN-ARMORER
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT CH.7:08 OF THE LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO AND
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2010-02389 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT CH.7:08 OF THE LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO AND IN THE MATTER OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
More informationTHE MYANMAR EXTRADITION ACT.
THE MYANMAR EXTRADITION ACT. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY. Sections. 1. * * * * 2. Definitions. CHAPTER II. SURRENDER OF FUGITIVE CRIMINALS IN CASE OF FOREIGN STATES. 3. (1) Requisition for surrender.
More informationTitle 15: COURT PROCEDURE -- CRIMINAL
Title 15: COURT PROCEDURE -- CRIMINAL Chapter 9: CRIMINAL EXTRADITION Table of Contents Part 1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE GENERALLY... Subchapter 1. ISSUANCE OF GOVERNOR'S WARRANT... 3 Section 201. DEFINITIONS...
More informationMUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS ACT
MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS ACT CHAPTER 11:24 Act 39 of 1997 Amended by 7 of 2001 14 of 2004 Current Authorised Pages Pages Authorised (inclusive) by L.R.O. 1 76.. 1/ L.R.O. 2 Ch. 11:24 Mutual
More informationBETWEEN AND HER WORSHIP SENIOR MAGISTRATE EJENNY ESPINET THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS. Before the Honourable Mme Justice Jacqueline Wilson
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV2017-01642 BETWEEN NORTHERN CONSTRUCTION LIMITED MARITIME GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AMRITH MAHARAJ ISHWAR GALBARANSINGH SADIQ BAKSH BRIAN KUEI TUNG STEVE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN STEVE FERGUSON ISHWAR GALBARANSINGH AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No: 185 of 2010 HCA No: CV 00639 of 2008 BETWEEN STEVE FERGUSON ISHWAR GALBARANSINGH APPELLANTS AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE AD of an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review NORMAN CHARLES RODRIGUEZ
CLAIM NO 275 OF 2014 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE AD 2014 IN THE MATTER of an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review AND IN THE MATTER of section 13 of the Belize City Council Act, Cap 85
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAN FERNANDO
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV NO. 2010-04129 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAN FERNANDO IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY OFFICER COMPLAINTS DIVISION TO INSTITUTE TWO DISCIPLINARY CHARGES
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV 2013-00972 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF PEARL JOB, PENSIONER OF NO.93 MT. GOMERY LOCAL ROAD, TOBAGO IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS ARISING OUT OF AN APPLICATION
More informationCHAPTER 113A CRIMINAL APPEAL
1 L.R.O. 2002 Criminal Appeal CAP. 113A CHAPTER 113A CRIMINAL APPEAL ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION CITATION 1. Short title. INTERPRETATION 2. Definitions. PART I CRIMINAL APPEALS FROM HIGH COURT 3. Right
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between CESARE BURKE. And HIS WORSHIP DEPUTY CHIEF MAGISTRATE MR. PATRICK MARK WELLINGTON
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. C.V. 2013-05041 Between CESARE BURKE Applicant/Claimant And HIS WORSHIP DEPUTY CHIEF MAGISTRATE MR. PATRICK MARK WELLINGTON Respondent/Defendant
More informationBurma Extradition Act, 1904
Burma Extradition Act, 1904 CHAPTER I - PRELIMINARY. 1. [Omitted.] 2. Definitions In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context: (a) "extradition offence" means any such offence
More informationCHAPTER 3:04 SUMMARY JURISDICTION (APPEALS) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
Summary Jurisdiction (Appeals) 3 CHAPTER 3:04 SUMMARY JURISDICTION (APPEALS) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. MAKING OF APPEAL 3. (1) Right of appeal. (2) Appeals
More informationCHAPTER 368 THE EXTRADITION ACT [PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION] ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 368 THE EXTRADITION ACT [PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION] ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section Title 1. Short title and application. 2. Interpretation. PART I PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS PART II THE SURRENDER OF FUGITIVE
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH CRIMINAL RULES
Court of Queen s Bench Rules COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH CRIMINAL RULES Table of Contents 9.1.2 Rules Pursuant to Section 424 of the Criminal Code with Respect to Mandamus, Certiorari, Habeas Corpus and Prohibition
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2009-02708 BETWEEN SYDNEY ORR APPLICANT AND THE POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION DEFENDANT Before the Honourable Mr. Justice A. des Vignes
More informationLAWS OF MALAYSIA. Act 479 EXTRADITION ACT 1992
LAWS OF MALAYSIA Act 479 EXTRADITION ACT 1992 3 LAWS OF MALAYSIA Act 479 EXTRADITI0N ACT 1992 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY Section 1. Short title and application. 2. Order of the Minister.
More informationAS INTRODUCED IN THE RAJYA SABHA THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL BILL, 2005 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES
THE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL BILL, 2005 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES AS INTRODUCED IN THE RAJYA SABHA ON THE 20TH DECEMBER, 2005 Bill No. CXXIX of 2005 CLAUSES CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY 1. Short title and commencement.
More informationFiji Islands Extradition Act 2003
The Asian Development Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development do not guarantee the accuracy of this document and accept no responsibility whatsoever for any consequences of
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN SEUKERAN SINGH CLAIMANT AND COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DEFENDANT
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2008-04470 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN SEUKERAN SINGH CLAIMANT AND COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HON. MADAME JUSTICE JOAN CHARLES Appearances: For
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV 2017-01240 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT NO 60 OF 2000 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN PHILLIP QUASHIE CLAIMANT AND THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER PROPOSED DEFENDANT
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV2009-02981 BETWEEN PHILLIP QUASHIE CLAIMANT AND THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER PROPOSED DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HON. MADAME JUSTICE JOAN CHARLES Appearances:
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009
COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 Court of Appeal Rules 2009 Arrangement of Rules COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 Arrangement of Rules Rule PART I - PRELIMINARY 7 1 Citation and commencement... 7 2 Interpretation....
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 41/99 JÜRGEN HARKSEN Appellant versus THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS: CAPE OF GOOD
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2015
CLAIM No. 292 of 2014 BETWEEN: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2015 IN THE MATTER OF Section 113 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, Chapter 91 of the Laws of Belize AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application
More informationVanuatu Extradition Act
The Asian Development Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development do not guarantee the accuracy of this document and accept no responsibility whatsoever for any consequences of
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL. BETWEEN MYRTLE CREVELLE, (ADMINISTRATRIX AD LITEM OF THE ESTATE OF CLYDE CREVELLE (deceased)) Appellant AND
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CIV. APP. NO. 45 OF 2007 HCA NO. 117 OF 2003 BETWEEN MYRTLE CREVELLE, (ADMINISTRATRIX AD LITEM OF THE ESTATE OF CLYDE CREVELLE (deceased)) Appellant AND THE ATTORNEY
More information(other than the Central People's Government or the government of any other
FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ORDINANCE - CHAPTER 503 FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ORDINANCE - LONG TITLE Long title VerDate:06/30/1997 An Ordinance to make provision for the surrender to certain places outside Hong Kong of
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between PAUL CHOTALAL. And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. C.V. 2014-00155 Between PAUL CHOTALAL Claimant And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendants Before the Honourable
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT CHAP 90:03 AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Claim No. CV 2012-00892 Civil Appeal No: 72 of 2012 IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT CHAP 90:03 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INTERPRETATION OF
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL ROY FELIX. And. DAVID BROOKS Also called MAVADO
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CA No. S 256/2017 Between ROY FELIX And DAVID BROOKS Also called MAVADO Claimant Defendant PANEL: BEREAUX J.A. NARINE J.A. RAJKUMAR J.A. APPEARANCES:
More informationRULES AND STATUTES ON HABEAS CORPUS with Amendments and Additions in the ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996
RULES AND STATUTES ON HABEAS CORPUS with Amendments and Additions in the ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996 CRIMINAL JUSTICE LEGAL FOUNDATION INTRODUCTION On April 24, 1996, Senate Bill
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO BETWEEN AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No. 113 of 2009 BETWEEN ANTONIO WEBSTER APPELLANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO RESPONDENT Civil Appeal No. 120 of
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (Sub-Registry, Tobago) BETWEEN SETH QUASHIE. And
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD & TOBAGO: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (Sub-Registry, Tobago) Claim No. CV2013-4226 BETWEEN SETH QUASHIE And Claimant THE TOBAGO HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Defendant Before the Honourable Mr.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN BRIAN MOORE. And PUBLIC SERVICES CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2010-03257 BETWEEN BRIAN MOORE Claimant And PUBLIC SERVICES CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Defendant Before the Honourable
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV NO. 2014-02019 IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT CHAPTER 7:08 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND PINKEY ALGOO ROOCHAN ALGOO RAJDAI ALGOO MEERA ALGOO AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2014-04731 BETWEEN KRISENDAYE BALGOBIN RAMPERSAD BALGOBIN Claimants AND PINKEY ALGOO ROOCHAN ALGOO RAJDAI ALGOO MEERA ALGOO First
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN [1] GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES LTD. [2] SILVANUS ERNEST.
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SAINT LUCIA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HCVAP 2012/006 BETWEEN [1] GENERAL AVIATION SERVICES LTD. [2] SILVANUS ERNEST and Appellants [1] THE DIRECTOR
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11 of 2002
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2009 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11 of 2002 BETWEEN: RHETT FULLER Appellant AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BELIZE Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley President The
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AND
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA CLAIM NO. ANUHCV 2007/0423 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between. And
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2012-00877 Between BABY SOOKRAM (as Representative of the estate of Sonnyboy Sookram, pursuant to the order of Mr. Justice Mon
More informationINDICTABLE OFFENCES (PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY) ACT
INDICTABLE OFFENCES (PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY) ACT CHAPTER 12:01 48 of 1920 5 of 1923 21 of 1936 14 of 1939 25 of 1948 1 of 1955 10 of 1961 11 of 1961 29 of 1977 45 of 1979 Act 12 of 1917 Amended by *See Note
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL PORT OF SPAIN BETWEEN AND MYRTLE DOROTHY PARTAP MYRTLE DORTOTHY PARTAP
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL PORT OF SPAIN Civ. App. No. S051 of 2017 CV No. 2013-04212 BETWEEN CRISTOP LIMITED Appellant/Plaintiff AND MYRTLE DOROTHY PARTAP First Respondent/Defendant
More informationRepublic of Trinidad and Tobago
Republic of Trinidad and Tobago Act No. 39 of 1997 Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act An Act to make provision with respect to the Scheme relating to Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters within
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV2015-03190 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY RAJAEE ALI (A PERSON INCARCERATED AT THE PORT OF SPAIN PRISON) FOR AN ADMINISTARTIVE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Cv. 2007/02055 BETWEEN THE NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CLAIMANT AND THE NATIONAL INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANT
More informationJUDGMENT. Gopichand Ganga and others (Appellant) v Commissioner of Police/Police Service Commission (Respondent)
[2011] UKPC 28 Privy Council Appeal No 0046 of 2010 JUDGMENT Gopichand Ganga and others (Appellant) v Commissioner of Police/Police Service Commission (Respondent) From the Court of Appeal of the Republic
More informationCHAPTER 44 CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART 1 PRELIMINARY PART 11 SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 44 CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION. 1. Short title PART 1 PRELIMINARY 2. Interpretation PART 11 SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO PROCEDURE 3. Juvenile courts. 4. Special
More informationBE it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with
Act No. 16, 1912. An Act to establish a court of criminal appeal; to amend the law relating to appeals in criminal cases ; to provide for better consideration of petitions of convicted persons ; to amend
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT 2000 AND
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO H.C.A. NO. 1688 OF 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT 2000 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY THE NATIONAL LOTTERIES CONTROL BOARD FOR LEAVE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN DEOCHAN SAMPATH AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV 2012-01734 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN DEOCHAN SAMPATH Claimant AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO First Defendant TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. The Hon. Mr. Davidson Kelvin Baptiste
SAINT LUCIA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HCVAP 2010/023 BETWEEN: ROLAND BROWNE Applicant/Intended Appellant/Claimant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (No longer a party) First Defendant THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
More informationTHE. FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACTS, 1881 and 1915
812 THE FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACTS, 1881 and 1915 FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACT, 1881, 44 & 45 Vic. c. 69 (Imperial) Amended by Statute Law Revision Acts, 1894, 57 & 58 Vic. c. 56, and 1898, 61 & 62 Vic. c. 22 An
More informationOMBUDSMAN BILL, 2017
Arrangement of Sections Section PART I - PRELIMINARY 3 1. Short title...3 2. Interpretation...3 3. Application of Act...4 PART II OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN 5 ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN
More informationExaminable excerpts of. Bail Act as at 30 September 2018 PART 1 PRELIMINARY
Examinable excerpts of Bail Act 1977 as at 30 September 2018 1A Purpose PART 1 PRELIMINARY The purpose of this Act is to provide a legislative framework for the making of decisions as to whether a person
More information1996 No (L.5) IMMIGRATION. The Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1996
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 1996 No. 2070 (L.5) IMMIGRATION The Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1996 Made 6th August 1996 Laid before Parliament 7th August 1996 Coming into force 1st September 1996 The Lord
More informationFEDERAL HIGH COURT ACT. 2. Appointment of Judges.
FEDERAL HIGH COURT ACT Arrangement of Sections Part I The Constitution of the Federal High Court 1. Establishment of the Federal High Court. 2. Appointment of Judges. 3. Tenure of office of Judges. 4.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN RUBY THOMPSON-BODDIE LENORE HARRIS AND THE CABINET OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE C.V. 2011/2027 BETWEEN RUBY THOMPSON-BODDIE LENORE HARRIS APPLICANTS AND THE CABINET OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Sub-Registry, San Fernando. VSN INVESTMENTS LIMITED Claimant AND. SEASONS LIMITED (In Receivership)
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Sub-Registry, San Fernando CV. NO. 2006-01349 BETWEEN VSN INVESTMENTS LIMITED Claimant AND SEASONS LIMITED (In Receivership) Defendant BEFORE
More informationThe Mental Hygiene Act
The Mental Hygiene Act being Chapter 238 of The Revised Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1940 (effective February 1, 1941). NOTE: This consolidation is not official. Amendments have been incorporated for convenience
More informationEXTRADITION A GUIDE TO IRISH PROCEDURES
EXTRADITION A GUIDE TO IRISH PROCEDURES Department of Justice and August 2015 Equality EXTRADITION A Guide to Procedures In Ireland Under Part II of the Extradition Acts Paragraph INDEX Page 1. Introduction
More informationCHILDREN COURT RULES, 2018
CHILDREN COURT RULES, 2018 CONTENTS Rule Page PART 1 CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND POWERS Citation and Commencement Rule 1.1 Definitions Rule 1.2 Application of the Rules Rule 1.3 Effect of non-compliance
More information3RD CIRCUIT LOCAL APPELLATE RULES Proposed amendments Page 1
3RD CIRCUIT LOCAL APPELLATE RULES Proposed amendments 2008 - Page 1 1 L.A.R. 1.0 SCOPE AND TITLE OF RULES 2 1.1 Scope and Organization of Rules 3 The following Local Appellate Rules (L.A.R.) are adopted
More informationProvincial Offences Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER P.33
Français Provincial Offences Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER P.33 Consolidation Period: From May 15, 2012 to the e-laws currency date. Last amendment: 2011, c. 1, Sched. 1, s. 7. SKIP TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS
More informationRespondents. Mr. Lennox Lawrence, Mr. Geoffrey Letang and Mrs.Dawn Yearwood-Stewart for the first, second, fourth and fifth Applicants
EASERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COUR COMMONWEALH OF DOMINICA IN HE HIGH COUR OF JUSICE CLAIM NO. DOMHCV2014/0295 BEWEEN: [1] HAYDEN MORGAN [2] GEMMA LOUIS [3] MARIN SEAMAN [4] DELVIN CHALLENGER [5] OLAN VIGILLE
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Zentai v Republic of Hungary [2009] FCAFC 139 EXTRADITION function of magistrate in conducting hearing under s 19 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) function of primary judge
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND RULING. that he was a prison officer and that on the 17 th June, 2006, he reported for duty at the
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Cv. 2010/2501 BETWEEN ELIAS ALEXANDER Claimant AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DEAN-ARMORER APPEARANCES
More informationISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
BAIL HEARINGS ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, 1998 Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing Also available to members at the SCDLA Web site: http://www.lexicongraphics.com/scdla.htm
More informationNORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1973 SESSION CHAPTER 1286 HOUSE BILL 256 AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAWS RELATING TO PRETRIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1973 SESSION CHAPTER 1286 HOUSE BILL 256 AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAWS RELATING TO PRETRIAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: Section 1. The
More informationMARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF S OFFICE POLICY AND PROCEDURES
MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF S OFFICE POLICY AND PROCEDURES Subject EXECUTION OF CRIMINAL PROCESS/CIVIL WARRANTS Policy Number EE-1 Effective Date 08-31-15 Related Information Supersedes EE-1 (12-06-96) PURPOSE
More information2017 No (L. 16) MENTAL CAPACITY, ENGLAND AND WALES. The Court of Protection Rules 2017
S T A T U T O R Y I N S T R U M E N T S 2017 No. 1035 (L. 16) MENTAL CAPACITY, ENGLAND AND WALES The Court of Protection Rules 2017 Made - - - - 26th October 2017 Laid before Parliament 30th October 2017
More informationTHE JOINT RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE FOR COURTS OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
THE JOINT RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE FOR COURTS OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Effective 1 January 2019 Table of Contents I. General... 1 Rule 1. Courts of Criminal Appeals... 1 Rule 2. Scope of Rules; Title...
More informationIN THE MATTER OF MAGISTERIAL SUIT NO. 66 OF 2008 AND IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT 2000 PART 56.
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES HIGH COURT CIVIL CLAIM NO. 320 OF 2011 IN THE MATTER OF MAGISTERIAL SUIT NO. 66 OF 2008 AND IN THE EASTERN
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT NO. 60 OF 2000 AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2013-004233 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT NO. 60 OF 2000 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT CHAPTER 35:01 AND
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT, NO. 60 OF 2000 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY CANSERVE CARIBBEAN LIMITED FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BETWEEN
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV No. 2009 03446 IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT, NO. 60 OF 2000 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY CANSERVE CARIBBEAN LIMITED
More information