Reyes v R

Last updated

Reyes v R
Royal Arms of the United Kingdom (Privy Council).svg
Arms of the Judicial Comittee of the Privy Council
Court Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case namePatrick Reyes, Appellant v The Queen, Respondent
Decided11 March 2002
Citation(s)[2002] UKPC 11, [2002] 2 AC 235, [2002] 2 WLR 1034
Case history
Prior action(s) Court of Appeal of Belize
Case opinions
Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Keywords
Capital punishment; inhuman or degrading punishment

Reyes v R is a 2002 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) case in which it was held that it was unconstitutional in Belize for capital punishment to be the mandatory sentence for murder. The JCPC held that because the Constitution of Belize prohibits "inhuman or degrading punishment", following a murder conviction, a trial judge must have discretion to impose a lesser penalty than death by hanging; capital punishment may be applied only in those cases that contain aggravating factors as compared to other murder cases.

The case was decided with R v Hughes and Fox v R , cases on the same issue on appeal from Saint Lucia and Saint Kitts and Nevis.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial Committee of the Privy Council</span> Judicial body in the United Kingdom

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) is the highest court of appeal for the Crown Dependencies, the British Overseas Territories, some Commonwealth countries and a few institutions in the United Kingdom. Established on 14 August 1833 to hear appeals formerly heard by the King-in-Council, the Privy Council formerly acted as the court of last resort for the entire British Empire, other than for the United Kingdom itself.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in the United Kingdom</span> History of the death penalty in the UK

Capital punishment in the United Kingdom predates the formation of the UK, having been used within the British Isles from ancient times until the second half of the 20th century. The last executions in the United Kingdom were by hanging, and took place in 1964; capital punishment for murder was suspended in 1965 and finally abolished in 1969. Although unused, the death penalty remained a legally defined punishment for certain offences such as treason until it was completely abolished in 1998; the last execution for treason took place in 1946. In 2004, Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights became binding on the United Kingdom; it prohibits the restoration of the death penalty as long as the UK is a party to the convention.

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of Indiana. The last man executed in the state, excluding federal executions at Terre Haute, was the murderer Matthew Wrinkles in 2009.

Capital punishment is one of two possible penalties for aggravated murder in the U.S. state of Oregon, with it being required by the Constitution of Oregon.

Gregg v. Georgia, Proffitt v. Florida, Jurek v. Texas, Woodson v. North Carolina, and Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. It reaffirmed the Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the United States, upholding, in particular, the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon Gregg. The set of cases is referred to by a leading scholar as the July 2 Cases, and elsewhere referred to by the lead case Gregg. The court set forth the two main features that capital sentencing procedures must employ in order to comply with the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments". The decision essentially ended the de facto moratorium on the death penalty imposed by the Court in its 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972). Justice Brennan dissent famously argued that "The calculated killing of a human being by the State involves, by its very nature, a denial of the executed person's humanity... An executed person has indeed 'lost the right to have rights."

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18. The 5–4 decision overruled Stanford v. Kentucky, in which the court had upheld execution of offenders at or above age 16, and overturned statutes in 25 states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Caribbean Court of Justice</span> Judicial institution of the Caribbean Community

The Caribbean Court of Justice is the judicial institution of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Established in 2005, it is based in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.

Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as part of the Constitution of Canada, is a legal rights section that protects an individual's freedom from cruel and unusual punishments in Canada. The section has generated some case law, including the essential case R. v. Smith (1987), in which it was partially defined, and R. v. Latimer (2001), a famous case in which Saskatchewan farmer Robert Latimer protested that his long, mandatory minimum sentence for the murder of his disabled daughter was cruel and unusual.

Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1879), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah in stating that execution by firing squad, as prescribed by the Utah territorial statute, was not cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Kent Bowers was a Belizean man convicted of murder and executed by Belize. He is the most recent person to have been executed in Belize.

The debate over capital punishment in the United States existed as early as the colonial period. As of April 2022, it remains a legal penalty within 28 states, the federal government, and military criminal justice systems. The states of Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Washington abolished the death penalty within the last decade alone.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Barbados</span>

The Judiciary of Barbados is an independent branch of the Barbadian government, subject only to the Barbadian Constitution. It is headed by the Chief Justice of Barbados. Barbados is a common law jurisdiction, in which precedents from English law and British Commonwealth tradition may be taken into account.

<i>Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor</i> Singapore Supreme Court case

Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor was a seminal case decided in 2010 by the Court of Appeal of Singapore which, in response to a challenge by Yong Vui Kong, a convicted drug smuggler, held that the mandatory death penalty imposed by the Misuse of Drugs Act ("MDA") for certain drug trafficking offences does not infringe Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution of Singapore.

<i>Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor</i> A landmark decision in 1980 from Singapore

Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor is a landmark decision delivered in 1980 by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from Singapore which deals with the constitutionality of section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 ("MDA"), and the mandatory death penalty by the Act for certain offences. The appellants contended that the presumption of trafficking under section 15 of the MDA violated Article 9(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and that the mandatory death penalty was arbitrary and violated Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

<i>R v Hughes</i>

R v Hughes is a 2002 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) case in which it was held that it was unconstitutional in Saint Lucia for capital punishment to be the mandatory sentence for murder. The JCPC held that because the Constitution of Saint Lucia prohibits "inhuman or degrading punishment", following a murder conviction, a trial judge must have discretion to impose a lesser penalty than death by hanging; capital punishment may be applied only in those cases that contain aggravating factors as compared to other murder cases.

<i>Fox v R</i> 2002 legal case

Fox v R is a 2002 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) case in which it was held that it was unconstitutional in Saint Kitts and Nevis for capital punishment to be the mandatory sentence for murder. The JCPC held that because the Constitution of Saint Kitts and Nevis prohibits "inhuman or degrading punishment", following a murder conviction, a trial judge must have discretion to impose a lesser penalty than death by hanging; capital punishment may be applied only in those cases that contain aggravating factors as compared to other murder cases.

<i>Pratt v A-G for Jamaica</i> Judicial committee in Jamaica

Pratt v A-G for Jamaica is a 1993 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) case in which it was held that it was unconstitutional in Jamaica to execute a prisoner who had been on death row for 14 years. The JCPC held that because the Constitution of Jamaica prohibits "inhuman or degrading punishment", excessive delays cannot occur between sentencing and execution of the punishment. In cases of such excessive delay, the death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment.

<i>Boyce v R</i> Case which upheld death sentence for murder in Barbados

Boyce v R is a 2004 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) case which upheld the law that sets out a mandatory sentence of death for murder in Barbados.

<i>Matthew v S</i> Judicial Committee of the Privy Council case

Matthew v S is a 2004 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) case which upheld the law that sets out a mandatory sentence of death for murder in Trinidad and Tobago.

<i>Bowe v R</i>

Bowe v R is a 2006 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) case in which it was held that it was unconstitutional in the Bahamas for capital punishment to be the mandatory sentence for murder. The JCPC held that because the Constitution of the Bahamas contains a qualified right to life and prohibits "inhuman or degrading punishment", following a murder conviction, a trial judge must have discretion to impose a lesser penalty than death by hanging; capital punishment may be applied only in those cases that contain aggravating factors as compared to other murder cases.