PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The applicant had been a magistrate, and challenged the application of a limitation period to his claim. He had been wrongfully suspended from his work, and the proceedings had been delayed and protracted. No effective progress having been made, he sought to challenge the original suspension. The court refused to hear the application as debarred by limitation. He said that the limitation period should have no application in a case involving a constitutional challenge and infringement of his human rights.
Held: Where the state became liable in tort, it was appropriate that limitation defences available to tortfeasors should also be available to the state, but the considerations on constitutional proceedings are different, and the limitation period did not apply. As a magistrate, making a decision in good faith, even if incorrectly, to allow that mistake to be charged as misconduct was to impugn the independence of the judiciary. The failure to pursue the case over a long period of time, with the magistrate suspended amounted to an abuse of power.
Judges:
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hutton Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett Lord Scott of Foscote
Citations:
[2002] UKPC 20, Appeal No 52 0f 2000
Links:
Crime, Commonwealth, Constitutional, Limitation, Human Rights
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174479
