With reference to section 21, Henry P said at page 70: "The section does not, however, in my view, detract in any way from the power of a court either during the five-year period or afterwards to construe an existing law 'with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications, and exceptions as may be necessary' to bring it into conformity with the Constitution. In a case where it is judged (subject to any appeal) that the defendant's crime is so heinous as to merit the ultimate penalty, that sentence may be passed. A similar course was followed, in our view rightly, by a majority of the Board in Roodal v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2003] UKPC 78, [2004] 2 WLR 652. Such is the procedure in Trinidad and Tobago, since it has been accepted in practice for very many years that by no means all those who are sentenced to death deserve to die. Section 2 of the 1962 Constitution provided that subject to sections 3 (existing laws), 4 (public emergency) and 5 (Acts passed with an enhanced majority), no law should abrogate, abridge or infringe any of the rights and freedoms listed, and in particular no Act of Parliament should "(b) impose or authorise the imposition of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment". The Board then read the relevant term of the Constitution into the existing law. In Boyce v R, which was released on the same day, the JCPC applied the same principles to a similar law in Barbados. It has done so by decisions such as Pratt and Morgan v Attorney-General for Jamaica [1994] 2 AC 1, concerning time spent on death row, Lewis v Attorney General of Jamaica [2001] 2 AC 50, concerning conditions on death row, and Reyes v The Queen [2002] 2 AC 235, concerning mandatory sentences of death. But it is preferable to amend section 4 since, as enacted, it appears to require that every person convicted of murder must not only be sentenced to death but must also be executed. Article 7 provides that no one shall be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. For all these reasons we would modify section 4 as indicated above, allow the appeal and remit the case to the High Court in order that a just and appropriate sentence may be passed on the appellant. 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. section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1925 provides that "Every person convicted of murder shall suffer death". On 1 December 2000 the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against the conviction. Such persons may be fortunate because Roodal left open the possibility that the judge could still as a matter of discretion sentence them to death. The Offences Against the Person Act is incompatible with the American Convention and thus any provision that establishes that Act's immunity from challenge is likewise incompatible, by virtue of the fact that Trinidad and Tobago, as a party to the Convention at the time that the acts took place, cannot invoke provisions of its domestic law as justification for failure to comply with its international obligations.". 6. TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO-----JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL. The correct approach to interpretation of a constitution such as that of Trinidad and Tobago is well-established by authority of high standing. The mandatory death penalty in Trinidad and Tobago is contained in section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act Chapter 11:08: "Every person convicted of murder shall suffer death". The Constitution of Belize contained, in section 21, a five-year time-limited savings clause, and the dispute in question arose after expiry of that period. The Advisory Committee which considers capital cases comprises the designated Minister, the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and not more than four other members appointed by the President after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition: section 88. On 6 September 2012, a week after section 34 of the Principal Act had come into force, one of the appellants’ co-defendants, Mr Maharaj, applied to the High Court for a discharge under section 34(3). Under the law of Trinidad and Tobago everyone convicted of murder must be sentenced to death. Gomes (Appellant) v The State (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago) From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago before Lord Mance Lord Sumption Lord Reed Lord Hughes Sir Brian Leveson JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 25 February 2015 Heard on 19 January 2015. section 6 of the 1976 Constitution the same effect as section 3 of the 1962 Constitution. Most constitutions have some overlap between legislative, executive and judicial functions. First, this appeal does not in any way concern the constitutionality of the death penalty in Trinidad and Tobago. The United States is Trinidad and Tobago’s largest trading partner. A reading of the Constitution, without reference to the 1976 Act, leaves no doubt that sections 4 and 5 are not intended to have any effect on existing laws. The only ground for appeal is that the judge wrongly thought that the death sentence was mandatory. Lord Hutton. It follows that the decision as to whether to abolish the mandatory death penalty must be, as the constitution intended it to be, a matter for the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago. If a form of words has acquired a clear and settled meaning and the draftsman wishes to reproduce that meaning in a later statute, he uses the same form of words again. The question in this case, however, is whether inconsistency with sections 4 and 5 has any effect on the validity of the mandatory death penalty. Ramjattan v. The State (Trinidad and Tobago) [1999] UKPC 8 (4th March, 1999) Indravani Ramjattan Appellant v.The State Respondent FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ----- REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL UPON A PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL AS A POOR PERSON OF THE 3rd February 1999, … and. What was held to preclude challenge to existing laws under the 1962 Constitution was section 3 ("shall not apply"). More recently, in Browne v The Queen [2000] 1 AC 45 and Director of Public Prosecutions of Jamaica v Mollison [2003] UKPC 6, [2003] 2 AC 411 the Board modified existing laws in, respectively, St Christopher and Nevis and Jamaica which provided for an indefinite sentence of detention during the Governor-General's pleasure in order to respect the constitutional imperative that the effective decision on the measure of punishment an individual offender should undergo should, in the absence of a fixed penalty set by legislation and uniformly applied and enforced, be a matter of judicial, and never executive, decision. The appellant accepts (as did the appellant in Roodal v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2003] UKPC 78, [2004] 2 WLR 652 in argument before the Board) that a defendant convicted of committing a murder with the intent needed to constitute that offence in law may, consistently with the Constitution, be sentenced to death and executed. First, the State became a republic. Their Lordships see no significance in the change of language from "shall not apply" to "shall not invalidate". section 5(1) of the 1976 Act:"Subject to the provisions of this section, Declaration of Human Rights 1948.