The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions

Noel v. The State (Trinidad and Tobago) [2000] UKPC 33 (11th September, 2000)

Advance Copy

Anderson Noel Petitioner

v.

The State Respondent

FROM

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL UPON A

------------------

Present at the hearing:-

Lord Hoffmann

[Delivered by Lord Hoffmann]

------------------

1. On 25th May 2000 the Board granted the petitioner Anderson Noel leave to appeal against his conviction for murder on 23rd January 1996, allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and ordered that Noel be retried together with his co-accused Christopher Bethel, whose conviction for the same murder had been set aside by the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago and a retrial ordered. These are brief reasons for the order of the Board.

 

2. The petitioner and Bethel had been convicted of the murder of Anthony Rajgir. Each had previously made statements to the police in which he admitted being present at the time of the killing but blamed the other for the murder. On 23rd March 2000 the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of Christopher Bethel on the ground that it was not satisfied that he had been adequately represented by his counsel at the trial. It ordered a retrial. Bethel petitioned the Judicial Committee for special leave to appeal against the order for a retrial. The Board dismissed the petition and the re-trial of Bethel will therefore take place.

 

3. Arising out of the appeal proceedings brought by Bethel, Anderson Noel has also petitioned (for the second time) for special leave to appeal. It is not necessary to go into the grounds of appeal because the State has accepted that if Bethel is to be retried, justice would require that Noel be retried as well. Their Lordships agreed with counsel for the State's position and therefore made an order in the terms previously stated.

 

4. Counsel for the petitioner asked the Board to direct that Noel should be represented at his trial by leading counsel. He reminded the Board that their Lordships have made such recommendations in the past. But they have been confined to one or two cases in which the matter was remitted for hearing by the Court of Appeal and their Lordships consider that the Board should be extremely sparing in its interventions in what must be primarily a matter for the judicial and administrative authorities in Trinidad and Tobago. But their Lordships observe that in view of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Bethel's case, it is obviously desirable that on this occasion both defendants should be properly represented by suitably experienced counsel.