Marryshow v The Queen
| Jurisdiction | Grenada |
| Judge | Haynes, P. |
| Judgment Date | 21 April 1986 |
| Neutral Citation | GD 1986 CA 4 |
| Docket Number | Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1986 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Grenada) |
| Date | 21 April 1986 |
Court of Appeal
Haynes, P., McKay, J.A., Kendall, J.A.
Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1986
K. Radix for the appellant.
Mrs. V. Hylton Q.C. for the respondent.
Criminal law - Contempt of court — Appeal against conviction — Facts: Newspaper article criticizing statement of D.P.P. that the jury list for a criminal matter was not in accordance with the Jury Act and reporting that the statement had “wronged” the Registrar. Newspaper refused to retract the statement at the D.P.P.'s request — Held: Finding by Court of Appeal that there was no real as opposed to remote possibility that the publication might interfere with the due course of justice. Appellant had not exceeded his right to criticize within permitted limits the administration of justice or acted with mala fides or malice or with the direct object of bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.
Liberty of the press - Limitations — Facts: Newspaper article criticizing statement of D.P.P. that the jury list for a criminal matter was not in accordance with the Jury Act and noting that the Registrar who prepared the list may have been wrong. Newspaper refused to retract the statement at the D.P.P.'s request — Held: Finding by Court of Appeal that the appellant had not exceeded his right to criticize within permitted limits the administration of justice, or that he had acted with mala fides or malice or with the direct object of bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. Words of caution issued to the press in relation to critical comments in pending trials. Appeal upheld and finding of contempt set aside.
On 14th March 1986 we heard this appeal. We allowed it orally. We have put our full reasons for so doing into writing which we now read.
On the 3rd March 1986 the High Court sat at Richmond Hill to try criminal proceedings on Indictment No. 19 or 1984 against 19 persons accused of murder. Byron, C.J. (Ag) presided. Before the proceedings began the Director of Public Prosecutions stated that the jury list for the sitting was not in accordance with the Jury Act. The Chief Justice ordered that the Registrar attend court in person on the following day. On that day the Registrar Mr. St. Louis, was in court. In response to a question from the bench he in open court stated that he had followed the law according to his understanding in selecting the panel. His Lordship heard legal submissions from the Director of Public Prosecutions. He ruled that the panel of jurors did not accord with section 15 of the Jury Act Chapter 151 or the Laws of Grenada. He discharged the entire panel and ordered the Registrar, in accordance with section 15 and 16 of the Act as amended, to select and summon 60 jurors for attendance at the resumed sitting of the court on 17th March 1986. The Registrar had selected only 30.
In the issue of the “Informer” a national newspaper dated 14th March and on the front page of it appeared an article headed “Registrar Wronged.” Under this caption wee a photograph of Mr. St. Louis with his name below it. This issue was sold to the public at large during the weekend prior to the 17th March 1986. The appellant, the editor of the newspaper, never seriously denied publication of it. It read as follows:
“REGISTRAR WRONGED
There were foreign radio broadcasts Wednesday before stating that Acting Registrar of the Supreme Court, Christian St. Louis, had been fired as a result of alleged irregularities in the summoning of jurors for the current Assizes, the “Bishop Murder Trial” in particular.
Informer's investigation of the matter reveals, however, that far from being guilty of any irregularities. Mr. St Louis was fired because of a difference in interpretation between Acting Chief Justice Byron and the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Jamaican Vilma Hilton, on the one hand, and Mr. St. Louis on the other, on the law pertaining to the selection of juries and Mr. St. Louis consequent refusal to obey instructions which in his opinion, and correctly so in ours would of necessity have involved Mr. St. Louis exceeding the relevant powers of Registrar. The issues came to a head on Tuesday March 4, when hearing of the ‘Bishop Murder Trial,’ listed on the criminal case list of the February Assizes and not as a special sitting — the really crucial factor in the matter — should have been called.
Put in a nutshell both the Acting Chief Justice and the Acting Director of Prosecutions were dissatisfied with the number of jurors summoned by Mr. St. Louis. So much so, Informer learns, Acting DPP Vilma Hilton, in a letter the previous Friday to the Acting Chief Justice and copied to Mr. St. Louis intimated that she intended raising in court on February 4 that section 15 of the Jury Ordinance and Ordinance 16 of 1984 had not been complied with by the Acting Registrar. Section 15 (I) states: “At a convenient time before any sitting of the court at which a jury may be required, the Registrar shall select (a) If the court be for criminal cases 30 persons.” It is over an amendment to this subsection purporting to increase the number of persons who could be summoned as jurors that the differences of opinion arise. Section 2(I) of the Jury (Amendment) ordinance No. 16 of 1984, decrees that “subsection (I) of section 19 of the principal Ordinance is amended by deleting the words “thirty persons to serve as jurors” and substituting the words “not less than thirty nor more than sixty persons to serve as jurors.” But the words “thirty persons to serve as jurors” appear nowhere in the principal Ordinance for any deletion of substitution to be made, which, it may be reasonably concluded, renders the purported amendment ineffective and leaves section 15(I) (a) of the principal Ordinance intact.
Nevertheless, Mr. St. Louis told INFORMER, Chief Justice Denis Byron instructed him “to summon 60 jurors for his court alone”, that is for the Bishop Murder Trial. This Mr. St. Louis insisted he had no power to do since, firstly, the Bishop Murder Trial was listed for the Assizes and as such should have its jury called from the panel of jurors summoned for the Assizes, and, secondly, because the Registrar in any case has no authority to summon more than “30 persons” by virtue of the ineffectiveness of Order 16 of 1984. There seems to be no plausible reason why 60 jurors should be summoned for any one case, even the Bishop Murder Case, down for the Assizes. Even if it were anticipated that maximum challenges by the nineteen accused might somewhat exhaust the panel summoned for the Assizes as a whole, Section 21 specifically provides that “whenever the requisite number of jurors have not been summoned, or do not appear, or do not remain as fair and indifferent after all just causes of challenge allowed, then it should be lawful for the court to put upon the jury so many persons of the bystanders, not exempted by law from serving on juries, as shall be sufficient to make up the full number, and they shall serve under pain of the same penalty as persons summoned as jurors refusing to serve.” So why all the fuss and deprivation of bread and buttery? It might indeed be a good idea to have the Bishop Murder case tried at a special sitting of the Court but until His Lordship so directs and notice of this effect is published in the Gazette and at least one local newspaper — INFORMER we hope — not lose than fourteen days before the date fixed for the sitting, our money says Mr. St. Louis had no authority, to summon 60 persons as jurors specifically for that case. The Acting Chief Justice was aware that Mr. St. Louis, would not have been in “his Court” on the morning of February 4, the Acting Registrar told INFORMER. According to him Lordship had the previous day consented to a request by him that he should not be in that court when Miss Hilton raised her question of compliance with the Jury Ordinance. The Chief Justice in fact suggested, Mr. St. Louis said, that he should get the Deputy Registrar or a clerk to attend in his place. Mr. St. Louis said that on the morning of February 4, he went to “court No. 2” and instructed the Deputy Registrar to go to the Richmond Hill Court, but the latter bluntly refused to do so. Mr. St. Louis said that he appraised the Puisne Judge in the No. 2 court of the matter.”
The Director of Public Prosecutions wrote the “INFORMER” a letter dated 17th and worded as follows:
“The Editor
The Informer
St. George's
Dear Sir,
For your benefit I set out hereunder the relevant sections of the Jury Law Chapter 151 of the Laws of Grenada which commences at page 2029 of Volume 2 of the said Laws together with amendments as were applicable an of 3rd March 1986”
and the relevant provisions of the laws are quoted verbatim in the letter.
Then it goes on:
“Please allow me to point out to you that your article is in contempt of court for the following reason among others. On page 1 of the INFORMER there is the following passage and I quotes
“Informer's investigation of the matter reveals, however, that far from being guilty of any irregularities, Mr. St. Louis was fired because of a difference in interpretation between Acting Chief Justice Byron and the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Jamaican Vilma Hylton, on the one hand, and Mr. St. Louis on the other, on the law pertaining to the selection of juries and Mr. St. Louis' consequent refusal to obey instructions which in his opinion, and correctly so in ours, would of necessity have involved Mr. St. Louis' exceeding the relevant powers of a Registrar.”
This suggests that you are setting up yourself as a Court of Appeal and you have gone further to overrule His Lordship the Acting Chief Justice. You will appreciate that your failure to properly advise yourself as to the law as it stood on 3rd March 1986 and up to 13th March 1986 giver you no excuse. I anticipate, therefore, that you may wish to...
To continue reading
Request your trial