Matter of Discretion: The De Facto Abolition of the Mandatory Death Penalty in Barbados – A Study of the Boyce and Joseph Cases

Abstract

The rising calls worldwide for a moratorium on the death penalty parallel the judicial erosion of the mandatory death penalty (“MDP”) in a number of Commonwealth Caribbean nations. The appellate proceedings of Attorney General of Barbados versus Jeffrey Joseph and Lennox Ricardo Boyce illustrate the jurisprudential evolution of the MDP in the following areas: (1) constitutionality; (2) deadlines for appeal; (3) the judicial review of executive clemency proceedings; and (4) petitions to international human rights organizations. This article explores the advent of a new chapter in Commonwealth Caribbean MDP jurisprudence through Attorney General v. Joseph, a seminal opinion by the Caribbean Court of Justice (“CCJ”). In this case, the CCJ augmented the procedural safeguards that have given rise to the de facto abolition of the MDP in Barbados and other Commonwealth Caribbean nations. This article also explains the intricate balance, in MDP appeals, of (1) constitutional and international law and (2) judicial review of executive action. The article concludes that the CCJ (once touted as a “hanging court”) has actually worked to secure the role of judicial discretion in MDP appeals and to insure the de facto abolition of the MDP.