PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad (CMC) — The Court of Appeal says there is neither a right to a speedy trial or a right to a trial within a reasonable time, even as it acknowledged that Trinidad and Tobago had ratified two international conventions on the matter.

In an unanimous ruling earlier this week, Court of Appeal judges Mark Mohammed, Peter Rajkumar and Maria Wilson said that these were not incorporated into domestic law when the 1976 Republican Constitution was thoroughly analysed.

The Court of Appeal had upheld the State’s appeal and set aside Justice Avason Quinlan-Williams’s 2023 ruling that the failure to ensure criminal cases involving child victims were expeditiously concluded was a breach of their right to protection of the law.

Justice Quinlan-Williams’s orders and declarations came after hearing the constitutional claim of a rape victim who had sued the State for inordinate delay in treating sexual offences.

In the case, the alleged victim complained of the court’s delay in dealing with her case since 2018. She spoke of the trauma of attending court and facing her alleged attacker.

“The ongoing court proceedings have added to her existing PTSD symptoms by retraumatising her in court,” the judge said.

The State appealed the judge’s ruling, arguing that the court’s orders for the State to put mechanisms in place and allocate sufficient resources to ensure the rape trial was completed expeditiously ascribed rights to a victim of crime that are not provided for under the constitution.

In its ruling on Monday, Justices Mohammed, Rajkumar and Wilson upheld the State’s appeal and set aside Quinlan-Williams’s orders and declarations. They also dismissed a cross-appeal file by the woman’s attorneys.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the attorney for the rape victim, Senior Counsel Lee Merry, who had argued against having his client pay the State’s costs at either the High Court or the Appeal Court.

Merry had argued it would discourage others from bringing similar claims and that it was the first time the courts had been asked to interrogate a particular constitutional point.

In its ruling the Court of Appeal noted that there are matters which have political, administrative, legislative, and financial implications which cannot properly be addressed by a court’s reading into the constitution a right which neither its language, structure, nor precedent permit.

The Court of Appeal said there was neither a right to a speedy trial or a right to a trial within a reasonable time when the 1976 Republican Constitution was thoroughly analysed.

Justice Mohammed said a right to a speedy trial or a right to a trial within a reasonable time, could not be implied in the “catalogue of rights provided in sections four and five of the constitution.

“To be clear, the contention is not that nothing can be implied into the constitution. The case law demonstrates otherwise. Rather, the contention is that the exercise of implication must be cautiously undertaken so that a court does not, by judicial interpretation, bind the State and its citizens to obligations which the constitutional framers did not expressly accept and might not have been willing to accept.

“There is nothing in sections four and five which would allow a right to a speedy trial or to a trial within a reasonable time to be engrafted onto our constitution.

“A court has to be alert to the possibility that it does not read into the constitution rights which do not exist simply because of the court’s own moral persuasions. A constitutional court must always be on guard to ensure that it does not let its own personal opinions and beliefs about what the constitution should protect seep into how it interprets what is actually said in this foundational document.”

The Court of Appeal said the danger of this would lead a court to engage in “divination rather than interpretation”.

Justice Quinlan-Williams had also ordered the State to ensure the claimant receives psychological counselling while the case against her alleged rapist is pending and to provide half-yearly reports to the registrar on these arrangements. She also ordered compensation of TT$60,000 for the alleged victim.

But in setting aside the order, the Court of Appeal noted that “none of the respondent’s constitutional rights were violated. She was, therefore, not entitled to damages”.