The recent judgement by the Court of Appeal in the matter of the Constitution of Grenada and in the matter of an application by Bernard Coard and others for redress pursuant to Section 16 of the Constitution of Grenada for contraventions of Sections 3, 5 and 8 in relation to them.

Between the Attorney General versus Bernard Coard, Callistus Bernard, Lester Redhead, Christopher Stroude, Hudson Austin, Liam James, Leon Cornwall, John Anthony Ventour, Dave Bartholomew, Ewart Layne, Colville McBarnette, Selwyn Strachan and Cecil Prime.

In March 2004 Justice Kenneth Benjamin ruled, among other things, that the death sentence imposed upon Bernard Coard and others was unconstitutional and illegal and the imposition of the term of life imprisonment for the remainder of their natural lives by the Governor General, pursuant to the advice of the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy, was unconstitutional, illegal and void.

The Court of Appeal unanimously disagreed with this judgement. The Court of Appeal felt, generally, that the trial taking place in the absence of the accused persons was due to their behaviour and was not a breach of the Constitution, as the Constitution allows for the trial of an accused person being conducted in his/her absence if he/she conducts himself/herself in such a manner so as to render the continuance of the proceedings in his/her presence impracticable.

The Court of Appeal did not accept the view that when trials are held in the absence of the accused that the sentence could be only a fine and not the death sentence, as this would be construed to mean that an accused person could dictate by his actions that he could not receive the full punishment prescribed by law.

The Court of Appeal further maintained that the Governor General, in issuing his pardon with the condition that the accused be imprisoned for the rest of their natural life was not unconstitutional as he had a constitutional power to grant a pardon with our without conditions and that was what he did. He exercised an Executive function and did not use up the function of a court exercising its judicial function.

The Court of Appeal felt that this was a further collateral attack by the accused persons, they having exhausted their appeal process and that it represents a misuse of the Court's constitutional jurisdiction by the accused. The Government of Grenada accepts and welcomes the decision of the Court of Appeal.

We believe that the ruling and sentiment of the Court of Appeal mirror and reflect the sentiments of an overwhelming majority of the Grenadian population.

(Submitted by the Ministry of Legal Affairs)