By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

of the Constitution that there should be differentiation between one arm of thestate and another. Once want of due process and infringement of liberty areorder “redress” section 6 (2) does not cut down section 6 (1): the intention wasto make the available relief as wide as possible. “Enforcement” in section 6(2) is not uses as a term of art, remedies are cumulative. There would be alacuna in the available remedies if damages were not included in redress”where enforcement is the prescribed remedy in respect of the contravention ofa right and the right is to do or not to have something done, the only way to“enforce” is to make an order which recognizes the existence of the right.Curv. Adv.vult.February 27. The judgment of the majority of their Lordship was delivered byLORD DIPLOCK.The unfortunate misunderstanding that resulted in the appellant, a member ofthe Bar of Trinidad and Tobago, being committed to seven days’imprisonment for contempt of court on April 17, 1975, upon the order ofMaharaj J., are narrated in the reasons for judgment deliverer by the JudicialCommittee on October 11, 1976, in the previous appeal to which they havegiven rise, Maharaj v. Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago [197] 1 allE.R. 411. that was an appeal against the committal order. It was allowed andthe order of Maharj J. was set aside. The grounds for doing so were that, p.416:“ In charging the appellant with contempt, Maharaj J. did not make plain tohim the particulars of the specific nature of the contempt with which he wasbeing charge. This must usually be done before an alleged contemnor canproperly be convicted and punished (in repelled (1868) L.R. 2 P.C. 106) intheir Lordships’ view, justice certainly demanded that the judge should havedone so in this certainly demanded that the judge should have done so in thisparticular case.Their Lordships are satisfied that his failure to explain that the contempt withwhich he intended to charge the appellant was what the judge has described inhis written reasons as ‘a vicious attach on the integrity of the court’ vitiatesthe committal for contempt.”This was finding that the judge, however inadvertently, had failed to observe afundamental rule of natural justice; that a person accused of an offence shouldbe told what he is said to have done plainly enough to give him an opportunityto put forward any explanation or excused that he may wish to advance.The question on the instant appeal is whether this constituted a deprivation ofliberty otherwise that by due process of law, within the meaning of section 1(a) of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago of 1962, for which the10