Electra Daniel Administrator for the estate of George Daniel v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago)

Where an appellate challenge concerns several constitutional grounds arising from the same undisputed facts, and deciding the additional grounds would not alter the practical relief, the court may treat them as academic and decline to decide them unless a compelling public interest requires otherwise. Important constitutional questions are better determined in a factual context where the decision matters. Under section 14 of the Constitution, a declaration may itself vindicate a right, particularly where accompanied by substantial remedial directions. Vindicatory damages remain discretionary and are not automatic.

The appellant challenged the accessibility of the Hall of Justice for wheelchair users by constitutional motion under section 14. Bereaux J upheld the complaint under section 4(a), declared a breach of the right to liberty and ordered direct public access within 18 months, but dismissed complaints under sections 4(d) and 4(g). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as academic, holding that the existing relief adequately vindicated the rights and that deciding the additional grounds would not affect the outcome. The appellant appealed to the Privy Council, seeking determination of the remaining constitutional issues and, belatedly, vindicatory damages.

Appeal dismissed. The Board dismissed the appeal at the hearing without calling on the respondent.

1. Academic constitutional issues. The Court of Appeal was entitled, and in the Board’s view correct, to treat the appeal as academic between the parties. The same undisputed facts supported each complaint, and deciding whether sections 4(d) and 4(g) had also been breached would have produced no different practical relief. There was no compelling public interest requiring those issues to be resolved in this case. The unappealed holding that the section 4(a) right to liberty included public access to courts remained effective. Since the Court of Appeal had declined to decide the scope of sections 4(d) and 4(g), the first-instance judgment did not establish a binding precedent on those questions. It was inappropriate either to remit the matter or for the Board itself to decide issues that had no practical relevance to the outcome.
2. Vindicatory damages. No damages claim had been advanced before the judge, and the notice of appeal did not challenge the failure to award damages. The appellant later stated that declarations would suffice. In any event, section 14 conferred a discretion to treat a declaration of violation as sufficient vindication, particularly where it was accompanied by a direction requiring expensive remedial works. The Board relied on Surratt v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2008] UKPC 38 and James v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2010] UKPC 23 concerning the width of that discretion. Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Ramanoop [2006] 1 AC 328 was materially different because it involved exceptionally serious police misconduct.
3. Costs. There was no order for costs on the appeal. The parties were given 28 days to make written submissions if they sought a different order.

• Privy Council. The appeal was dismissed on 21 June 2011 for the reasons later delivered in [2011] UKPC 31. No order was made as to costs, subject to written submissions within 28 days.
• Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. On 29 January 2010 the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The court held that the existing declaration and remedial relief adequately vindicated the appellant’s rights and that the remaining issues were academic.
• Supreme Court of Justice, High Court. Bereaux J on 20 July 2007 declared that the lack of direct public wheelchair access breached section 4(a), ordered access to be provided within 18 months, dismissed the complaints under sections 4(d) and 4(g), and ordered costs.