Hinds v The Queen
Parliament could not transfer the judicial power of sentencing to a body controlled by the executive in breach of a written constitution.
Facts
The Gun Court Act 1974 in Jamaica created a new court to try firearms offences. It provided for a mandatory sentence of detention at hard labour, from which a prisoner could be released only on the decision of a review board, most of whose members were not judges. The defendants, convicted of firearms offences, argued that the Act was unconstitutional.
Legal principle
The Privy Council held that the provisions about sentencing and the review board were unconstitutional. The Constitution of Jamaica, following the Westminster model, gave the judicial power, including the power to determine the length of a sentence for a particular offender, to the judiciary. Parliament could not transfer that power to a body composed largely of non judges. The decision applied the principle of the separation of powers implicit in Westminster style constitutions.
Related cases on separation of powers and parliamentary privilege
- Bradlaugh v Gossett (1884) 12 QBD 271
- Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs [1980] 1 WLR 142
- Harper v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1955] Ch 238
- Liyanage v The Queen [1967] 1 AC 259
- Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593
- Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321
- R (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 46, [2003] 1 AC 837
- R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38, [2015] AC 657
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
