Court of Appeal of Turks and Caicos Islands

The Court of Appeal currently sits in sessions on Providenciales and the Court is made up of at least 3 Judges of Appeal.

It has the jurisdiction assigned to it by the Court of Appeal Ordinance. It considers appeals from the Supreme Court and the Labour Tribunal. It also sits as a Constitutional Court, considering questions that may be referred to it by the Attorney General under the Attorney General’s Reference of Questions Ordinance.

Visit website

https://judicial.tc

12 judgments

Advanced search

All years

All months

Filters

Sort by:

12 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
September 2019
CG Management Ltd and Others v The Seagate Management Co Ltd and Another (CL-AP 18 of 2018) [2019] TCACA 13 (26 September 2019) Outgoing manager may retain a reasonable adjusted fee for advance bookings procured before termination; remainder of deposits payable to proprietors. Contract construction – condominium management agreements – advance reservations – whether outgoing manager earns full commission on reservations made before termination – interpretation of clauses 1.4, 3.1 and 8.3 – entitlement to reasonable adjusted remuneration – matter remitted for quantification.	26 September 2019
Gardiner v Regina (CR-AP 6 of 2018) [2019] TCACA 7 (26 September 2019) Whether inconsistent verdicts and alleged misdirection rendered the rape conviction unsafe; appeal dismissed and sentence affirmed. Criminal law – inconsistent verdicts – burden on appellant to show that inconsistent verdicts cannot reasonably stand; Summing‑up – duty to put defence fairly but rejected counsel suggestions are not evidence; Prior inconsistent statement – exclusion where collateral to consent issue; Sentencing – starting point and aggravating features for rape, custodial sentence affirmed.	26 September 2019
In Re: The Crown v The Integrity Commission (CL-AP 12 of 2018) [2019] TCACA 5 (26 September 2019) Section 20 summonses are limited to formal inquiries; confidential bank information requires statutory production or inquiry mechanisms. Integrity Commission Ordinance – s.20 summons powers limited to formal inquiries under s.46; no freestanding summons power for general investigations. Statutory interpretation – read s.20 in context of Part III; distinguish between functions and conferred powers. Investigative powers – Part IV provides production orders and investigative officer powers (s.30) as proper routes to obtain confidential materials Confidentiality – Confidential Relations Ordinance applies to bank customer information; Ordinance does not exclude CRO. Constitutional consideration – constitutional role of Commission does not justify broadening s.20 beyond formal inquiry context	26 September 2019
Joseph v Regina (CR-AP 10 of 2018) [2019] TCACA 8 (26 September 2019) Failure to direct on GSR source and admission of spent shells recovered 18 hours later rendered the trial unfair; convictions quashed. Criminal evidence – forensic evidence (GSR) – necessity to direct jury on source and limitations of GSR; Evidence and procedure – admissibility of recovered exhibits – delay, scene security and chain of custody; Prejudice vs probative value – trial judge’s discretion to exclude evidence to ensure a fair trial; Conviction unsafe where prejudicial evidence improperly admitted.	26 September 2019
Joseph v Regina (CR-AP 18 of 2018) [2019] TCACA 11 (25 September 2019) Appeal dismissed: fresh evidence refused, guilty plea voluntary, and no exceptional circumstances justified avoiding seven-year mandatory sentence. Criminal procedure – fresh evidence on appeal – Sundama test: unavailable at trial, reasonable explanation, relevance and credibility required.* Criminal law – withdrawal of guilty plea – plea must be unequivocal, voluntary and informed; residual discretion to allow withdrawal only in clear cases of injustice.* Sentencing – firearms offences – mandatory minimum sentence applicable absent ‘exceptional circumstances’; appellate interference only where trial judge clearly wrong.* Constitutional challenge – mandatory minimum sentences scrutinised for arbitrariness/disproportion but upheld where judge properly applied exceptionality test.	25 September 2019
March 2019
Big Blue Unlimited v De Bruyne (CL-AP 4 of 2018) [2019] TCACA 4 (22 March 2019)	22 March 2019
Chesterton v Paul (CL-AP 11 of 2018) [2019] TCACA 12 (22 March 2019)	22 March 2019
Joseph v Regina (CR-AP 13 of 2018) [2019] TCACA 9 (22 March 2019)	22 March 2019
Joseph v Regina (CR-AP 32 of 2016) [2019] TCACA 2 (22 March 2019) Judge’s failure to direct that intent arising from provocation reduces murder to manslaughter led to conviction being quashed and substituted. Criminal law — Provocation/loss of self-control — Trial judge's directions — Intent to kill may arise from provocation and reduce murder to manslaughter — "Laws of England" in local Ordinance construed as law at time of enactment — Misleading jury directions warrant appellate intervention.	22 March 2019
Pinder v Regina (CR-AP 14 of 2018) [2019] TCACA 10 (22 March 2019) A magistrate is functus officio once a conviction or sentence is announced and cannot later add mandatory disqualification. Magistrates’ sentencing — functus officio — announcement of conviction/sentence completes decision — magistrate cannot later alter or add mandatory statutory disqualification — proper remedy is judicial review (certiorari).	22 March 2019
Presil and Others v Regina (CR-AP 2 of 2017; CR-AP 3 of 2017; CR-AP 5 of 2017) [2019] TCACA 3 (22 March 2019) Failure to warn jury about possible improper motive of detained prosecution witness rendered convictions unsafe; retrial ordered. Criminal law – credibility of detained witness – detention continued under Firearm Related Offences (Detention and Bail) Ordinance; indicia of improper motive; duty on judge to identify evidential basis for possible taint and to warn jury to be cautious before accepting such evidence; failure to do so renders conviction unsafe – retrial ordered.	22 March 2019
Missick v Regina (CR-AP 30 of 2015) [2019] TCACA 1 (6 March 2019) Conviction quashed where judge failed to direct jury on key inconsistencies and witness credibility. Criminal law – firearms offence – jury directions – duty of judge to analyse material inconsistencies between witness testimony and forensic/police evidence – cautionary direction where witness may be biased (family animus) – miscarriage of justice where omissions render conviction unsafe.	6 March 2019