(Jamaica) A bill was presented to the Jamaican parliament to transfer the appellate jurisdiction from the Board of the Privy Council to the Caribbean Court of Justice.
Held: Whilst there was a duty to recognise and respect alternate courts, the result of the change would be that the protections presently guaranteed by the constitution would remain in place, but would no longer be guaranteed, and the change was unlawful. Certain provisions are to be more deeply entrenched. Guarantees of the independence and security of the judiciary are entrenched. The result of the alteration would mean that later amendments to the new court system might be allowed and that independence of the judiciary undermined. The original Referendum Act did not therefore purport to amend the constitution, and was valid: ‘There is a difference in principle between requiring a referendum as part of the legislative process and requiring a referendum which is no more than advisory. The result of the referendum in the latter case imposes no obligation on the legislature.’
 UKPC 3,  2 AC 356,  2 WLR 923
England and Wales
Cited – Attorney General of Australia v The Queen and the Boilermakers’ Society of Australia; Kirby v The Queen and Boilermakers’ Society of Australia PC 1957
When looking at a new court having a different name, the courts must ask the nature of the jurisdiction exercised, and test the method of appointment of judges for conformity with the constitution. It would be a travesty of the constitution if . .
Cited – Hinds and other v The Queen; Director of Public Prosecutions v Jackson, attorney General of Jamaica (Intervenor) PC 1-Dec-1975
The Gun Court Act 1974 of Jamaica established special courts at different levels to deal with varieties of crimes involving guns. There was provision for hearings to be held in camera. Certain offences carried mandatory life sentences reviewable . .
Cited – Kariapper v Wijesinha PC 1967
The legislation at issue imposed ‘civil disabilities’ on Members of Parliament against whom allegations of bribery had been sustained, including the loss of their seats in Parliament. The question arose whether they had been punished.
Held: . .
Cited – Attorney General for Alberta v Attorney General for Canada PC 1947
The Board considered the severability of statutory provisions viewed for constitutionality: ‘The real question is whether what remains is so inextricably bound up with the part declared invalid that what remains cannot independently survive or, as . .
Cited – The Prime Minister of Belize, The Attorney General of Belize v Vellos, Dawson and Others PC 24-Mar-2010
(Belize) Challenge was made to an Act removing certain constititutional rights which Act was passed without a referendum. The Act amending the constitution to require further amendments to follow a referendum did not itself follow the constitutional . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2021; Ref: scu.222758