Boyce v R

This article does not cite any sources. Please help by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources:  –  ·  ·  · scholar · JSTOR (December 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Boyce v R
Court	Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case name	Lennox Ricardo Boyce and Jeffrey Joseph, Appellants v The Queen, Respondent
Decided	7 July 2004
Citation(s)	[2004] UKPC 32, [2005] 1 AC 400, [2004] 3 WLR 786
Case history
Prior action(s)
Case opinions
Lord Hoffman
Keywords
Capital punishment; inhuman or degrading punishment

Boyce v R 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 Barbados.

The JCPC held in some cases, the law that makes capital punishment mandatory for murder will violate the prohibition on "inhuman or degrading punishment" in the Constitution of Barbados. (This principle is consistent with the 2002 JCPC cases of Hughes, Fox, and Reyes.) However, because (1) the Constitution of Barbados disallows itself to act to invalidate laws that existed prior to the enactment of the constitution, and (2) the law in question pre-dated the constitution, the mandatory death provisions of the law could not be invalidated and must be upheld.

In Matthew v S, which was released on the same day, the JCPC applied the same principles to a similar law in Trinidad and Tobago.

Notes[]

See also[]

• Judiciary of Barbados
• Attorney General of Barbados
• Supreme Court of Judicature (Barbados)

External links[]

• Boyce v R, bailii.org
• Boyce et al. v. Barbados - Inter-American Court of Human Rights Project, Loyola Law School (Los Angeles) International and Comparative Law Review’s Inter-American Court of Human Rights Project database and journal.