Under the law of Trinidad and Tobago, the death penalty by hanging remains the mandatory sentence for murder under section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act, Chapter 11:08. Although the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Chapter 1:01 prohibits cruel and unusual punishment under sections 4 and 5, the mandatory death penalty has been preserved by the savings clause in section 6 of the Constitution. The last execution in Trinidad and Tobago took place on 28 July 1999, and as of 2026 no death warrant has been carried out for over 26 years.
Is the Death Penalty Still the Law in Trinidad and Tobago?
Yes. The death penalty is still the law on the books in Trinidad and Tobago. Section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act, Chapter 11:08 — a statute originally enacted in 1925 and continued in force under the Independence and Republican Constitutions — provides that "every person convicted of murder shall suffer death." That language is mandatory: a trial judge has no discretion to impose a lesser sentence on a person convicted of murder.
In practice, however, Trinidad and Tobago is classified internationally as abolitionist de facto. No execution has been carried out since 1999, when Dole Chadee and his eight co-accused were hanged for the murder of the Baboolal family, followed shortly afterward by the execution of Anthony Briggs. Death sentences continue to be passed by the High Court, but the combination of the Pratt and Morgan five-year rule, sustained constitutional litigation, and political reluctance has meant that, in practice, no death warrant has been signed and executed for more than two decades.
In our practice over the past 35 years, we have seen the operation of the death penalty change dramatically — from a working sentence with regular executions in the 1990s, to a sentence that is pronounced but not carried out, to a sentence whose entire constitutional foundation is now under sustained legal pressure from the Privy Council.
What Does the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago Say About the Death Penalty?
The Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Chapter 1:01 contains two provisions that bear directly on capital punishment, and a third — the savings clause — that determines whether those provisions can actually be enforced against pre-1976 statutes.
Section 4(a) of the Constitution recognises and declares "the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law." Section 4 does not prohibit the death penalty outright. It permits deprivation of life "by due process of law" — language that has been read as preserving the legitimacy of capital punishment imposed after a fair trial.
Section 5(2)(b) of the Constitution provides that Parliament may not "impose or authorise the imposition of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment." This is the provision on which most modern constitutional challenges to the death penalty rest. The Privy Council and the courts of Trinidad and Tobago have repeatedly accepted that the mandatory death penalty — a death sentence imposed automatically without consideration of the circumstances of the offender or the offence — does amount to cruel and unusual punishment when measured against modern human rights standards.
Section 6 of the Constitution is the savings clause. It provides that nothing in sections 4 and 5 shall invalidate any "existing law" — that is, any law that was in force immediately before the Constitution came into effect on 1 August 1976. Because section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act dates back to 1925, the mandatory death penalty for murder is an "existing law" within the meaning of section 6. That single technical fact is what has kept the mandatory death penalty constitutionally alive in Trinidad and Tobago, despite the now-settled view that, on its merits, it would otherwise be cruel and unusual punishment.
What Is the Savings Clause and Why Does It Matter?
The savings clause is the single most important concept in understanding the current position of the death penalty in Trinidad and Tobago. Without it, the mandatory death penalty would almost certainly have been struck down decades ago. With it, the courts have held — narrowly, and with considerable judicial disagreement — that the mandatory death penalty survives constitutional scrutiny.
The function of the savings clause was originally transitional. The drafters of the 1976 Constitution recognised that it would be impractical to expose the entire body of pre-1976 colonial-era law to immediate constitutional challenge. The savings clause was meant to preserve the existing legal order while Parliament addressed reform issue by issue. In practice, however, Parliament has not amended section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act, Chapter 11:08 to remove the mandatory death sentence — and so the savings clause continues to operate as a permanent shield.
The constitutional consequence is stark: a law that would today be struck down as unconstitutional if it were passed afresh remains lawful and operative because it was already on the statute book in 1976.
What Is the Pratt and Morgan Five-Year Rule?
The most important Privy Council decision on the death penalty in the Commonwealth Caribbean is Pratt and Morgan v The Attorney General for Jamaica [1993] UKPC 1. Although decided on appeal from Jamaica, the case is directly applied in Trinidad and Tobago and remains the cornerstone of capital sentencing law in the region.
In Pratt and Morgan, the Privy Council held that to execute a prisoner after prolonged delay on death row amounts to inhuman punishment and is unconstitutional. The Board set out what has become known as the five-year rule: where a prisoner has spent more than five years under sentence of death from the date of conviction, there is a strong presumption that to carry out the death sentence would be inhuman and degrading punishment. In such a case, the proper course is for the death sentence to be commuted to life imprisonment.
The five-year period runs from the date of conviction and is measured against the entire delay — including delay caused by the prisoner's own appeals. The Privy Council reasoned that a person sentenced to death is entitled to exhaust the appellate process, and the State cannot rely on the prisoner's own pursuit of those appeals as an excuse for the additional suffering caused by extended delay.
The practical effect of Pratt and Morgan in Trinidad and Tobago has been profound. After the decision, approximately 60 death row prisoners in Trinidad and Tobago had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment. The five-year rule continues to constrain the State today: any person who has been on death row for more than five years from the date of conviction is, in practice, no longer eligible for execution and must have their sentence commuted.
What Did Roodal Decide About the Mandatory Death Penalty?
In Roodal v The State (Trinidad and Tobago) [2003] UKPC 78, decided on 20 November 2003, a five-member panel of the Privy Council split three to two and held — for the first time — that the mandatory death penalty in Trinidad and Tobago was unconstitutional.
The majority reasoned that section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act could be "modified" under the Constitution to read as imposing a discretionary rather than mandatory death sentence. On that interpretation, the savings clause did not save the mandatory character of the penalty — only the existence of capital punishment for murder. Roodal's death sentence was set aside and a sentence of life imprisonment substituted.
For a brief period between November 2003 and July 2004, the death penalty in Trinidad and Tobago was therefore — at the level of the highest appellate court — a discretionary sentence. Trial judges were on notice that they could not automatically pass a sentence of death on a person convicted of murder; they had to consider the circumstances of the offender and the offence and exercise sentencing discretion. That position was, however, short-lived.
How Did Matthew Overrule Roodal?
The Privy Council reconvened on the same question with an enlarged nine-member panel in Matthew v The State (Trinidad and Tobago) [2004] UKPC 33, delivered on 7 July 2004. By a majority of five to four — what Lord Anthony Gifford has described as a "knife-edge" decision — the Board overruled Roodal and restored the mandatory death penalty.
The Matthew majority accepted that the mandatory death penalty does amount to cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of section 5 of the Constitution. They nonetheless held that the savings clause in section 6 preserves the pre-1976 mandatory penalty from constitutional invalidation. The savings clause, the majority concluded, was not merely transitional but a substantive constitutional choice: the framers had elected to preserve existing laws, and reform of the mandatory death penalty was a matter for the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago, not the courts.
The four-member minority would have upheld Roodal. They reasoned that the savings clause should be read narrowly so as not to entrench laws that conflict with the Constitution's express prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The minority reasoning has continued to influence Caribbean constitutional jurisprudence ever since.
Where Does Chandler Leave the Mandatory Death Penalty?
In Chandler v The State (No. 2) [2022] UKPC 19, decided on 16 May 2022, the Privy Council sitting as a nine-member panel reaffirmed Matthew. Jay Chandler had been convicted of murder in August 2011 and sentenced to death by hanging. He challenged the mandatory death penalty on the same constitutional grounds that had been considered in Roodal and Matthew.
The Board, by a majority, dismissed the appeal. The Privy Council held that the savings clause in section 6 of the Constitution preserves the lawfulness of the mandatory death penalty despite its inconsistency with the fundamental rights provisions. The savings clause was not a spent transitional provision; it was a deliberate constitutional safeguard for existing laws, and the abolition of the mandatory death penalty was a matter for Parliament and not for the courts.
In reaching that conclusion, the Privy Council in Chandler expressly declined to follow two recent Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) decisions — Nervais v The Queen (Barbados) and McEwan v Attorney General of Guyana — which had read savings clauses far more narrowly so as not to entrench laws inconsistent with fundamental rights. The Board's refusal to adopt the CCJ's approach has reinforced the divergence between Privy Council and CCJ jurisprudence on the constitutional treatment of pre-Independence laws in the Commonwealth Caribbean.
The practical consequence of Chandler is that, as of April 2026, the mandatory death penalty for murder under section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act, Chapter 11:08 remains the law of Trinidad and Tobago, and the constitutional route to its abolition has effectively been closed off. Reform must now come through legislation passed by the Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago.
Does Keros Martin v DPP [2025] UKPC 2 Affect the Death Penalty?
Keros Martin & Ors v Director of Public Prosecutions (Trinidad and Tobago) [2025] UKPC 2, decided on 14 January 2025, is not a death penalty case in the strict sense — but it is directly relevant to the broader constitutional framework in which murder prosecutions are conducted in Trinidad and Tobago.
The case concerned the new bail regime for murder under the Bail (Amendment) Act 2024, which permits bail to be granted to a person charged with murder where they can show "exceptional circumstances." The Privy Council dismissed the appeals of Keros Martin and six co-accused police officers and gave guidance on how applicants whose bail was previously refused should approach a fresh application under the amended Act.
Because every person facing a murder charge in Trinidad and Tobago is, on conviction, liable to the mandatory death penalty under section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act, Chapter 11:08, the bail framework is structurally intertwined with the capital sentencing regime. The Keros Martin decision is therefore a significant marker in the Privy Council's continued supervision of the criminal justice architecture surrounding murder cases.
What Did Xavier and Philip v Attorney General Decide in 2025?
On 23 June 2025, in Xavier and Philip v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago, presided over by Justice Westmin James, ruled that two long-serving death row claimants — Evans Xavier and Irving Philip, who had spent between 37 and 39 years in custody — had suffered serious breaches of their constitutional rights and ordered that they be judicially resentenced by a judge of the criminal division of the High Court rather than have the matter left to the Executive. The Court further ordered that any consequential financial damages be assessed by a Master.
In delivering judgment, Justice James was sharply critical of the State for ignoring earlier orders relating to the claimants' constitutional protections, describing the Executive's conduct, in widely reported terms, as effectively "a spit in the face of the courts." Xavier and Philip is the most-cited Trinidad and Tobago death penalty development of 2025: although it does not disturb Chandler on the constitutionality of the mandatory penalty, it confirms that long-delayed death row prisoners are entitled, as a matter of constitutional remedy, to judicial — not merely executive — resentencing, and it reinforces the practical reality that the mandatory death penalty in Trinidad and Tobago has become unenforceable in the great majority of cases.
Timeline: The Privy Council and the T&T Death Penalty
| Year | Case / Event | Citation | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1925 | Offences Against the Person Act enacted | Now Cap. 11:08, s. 4 | Imposes mandatory death sentence for murder |
| 1976 | Republican Constitution adopted | Cap. 1:01 | Section 5 prohibits cruel and unusual punishment; section 6 saves existing laws |
| 1993 | Pratt and Morgan v AG (Jamaica) | [1993] UKPC 1 | Five-year rule: execution after 5+ years on death row is inhuman; sentence must be commuted |
| 1999 | Last executions in Trinidad and Tobago | — | Dole Chadee and 8 others (June); Anthony Briggs (28 July) |
| 2003 | Roodal v The State | [2003] UKPC 78 | Mandatory death penalty held unconstitutional; modified to discretionary |
| 2004 | Matthew v The State | [2004] UKPC 33 | Roodal overruled 5–4; mandatory death penalty restored under savings clause |
| 2022 | Chandler v The State (No. 2) | [2022] UKPC 19 | Matthew reaffirmed by 9-member panel; constitutional route to abolition closed |
| 2024 | Bail (Amendment) Act 2024 | Assented 19 July 2024 | Bail available for murder accused on proof of exceptional circumstances |
| 2025 | Keros Martin v DPP | [2025] UKPC 2 | Privy Council guidance on bail in murder cases under the 2024 amendment |
| 2025 | Xavier and Philip v AG (T&T High Court, Westmin James J) | Decided 23 June 2025 | High Court orders judicial resentencing of long-serving death row claimants; State criticised for ignoring earlier orders |
What the Law Says in Trinidad and Tobago
| Statute / Authority | Relevance |
|---|---|
| Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Chapter 1:01 | Section 4(a) recognises the right to life subject to due process; section 5(2)(b) prohibits cruel and unusual punishment; section 6 is the savings clause that preserves pre-1976 laws including the mandatory death penalty |
| Offences Against the Person Act, Chapter 11:08 (originating 1925) | Section 4 provides that "every person convicted of murder shall suffer death" — the operative provision imposing the mandatory death sentence in Trinidad and Tobago |
| Pratt and Morgan v The Attorney General for Jamaica [1993] UKPC 1 | Established the five-year rule: execution after more than 5 years on death row is inhuman punishment; sentence must be commuted to life imprisonment |
| Roodal v The State [2003] UKPC 78 | 3–2 majority held the mandatory death penalty unconstitutional; "modified" the law to a discretionary sentence — short-lived authority |
| Matthew v The State [2004] UKPC 33 | 9-member panel by 5–4 majority overruled Roodal; mandatory death penalty saved by section 6 of the Constitution |
| Chandler v The State (No. 2) [2022] UKPC 19 | Reaffirmed Matthew; constitutional challenge to mandatory death penalty closed off; reform now a matter for Parliament |
| Keros Martin & Ors v DPP [2025] UKPC 2 | Privy Council guidance on bail for murder accused under the Bail (Amendment) Act 2024 |
| Bail (Amendment) Act 2024 (assented 19 July 2024) | Permits bail for persons charged with murder upon proof of exceptional circumstances |
What Is the Current State of Death Row in Trinidad and Tobago?
As of public reporting in May 2025, approximately 38 inmates were under sentence of death in Trinidad and Tobago. Of those, only a small subset — reported as 18 — had been on death row for less than the five-year period set by Pratt and Morgan and were therefore, in theory, still eligible for execution. The remainder are protected by the five-year rule and must, in practice, have their sentences commuted to life imprisonment.
The last execution carried out in Trinidad and Tobago was that of Anthony Briggs on 28 July 1999, following the executions of Dole Chadee and his eight co-accused over four days in June 1999. No execution has been carried out in the 26 years since.
Various legislative reform efforts have been attempted and have failed, including the Offences Against the Person (Amendment) Act 2000, which would have categorised murders into capital and non-capital classes but was never commenced, and the Constitution (Amendment) (Capital Offences) Bill of 2011, which was defeated. Successive Attorneys General have called for the resumption of hangings, but no government has been able to secure either the legislative consensus or the operational steps required to recommence executions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the death penalty still legal in Trinidad and Tobago?
Yes. As of April 2026, the death penalty by hanging remains the mandatory sentence for murder under section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act, Chapter 11:08. The Privy Council in Chandler v The State (No. 2) [2022] UKPC 19 confirmed that the mandatory death penalty is preserved by the savings clause in section 6 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Chapter 1:01, even though it would otherwise be cruel and unusual punishment under section 5. However, no execution has been carried out since 28 July 1999, and Trinidad and Tobago is classified internationally as abolitionist de facto.
When was the last execution in Trinidad and Tobago?
The last execution carried out in Trinidad and Tobago was the hanging of Anthony Briggs on 28 July 1999 for the murder of taxi driver Siewdath Ramkissoon. This followed the high-profile executions earlier that month of Dole Chadee and his eight co-accused — Joey Ramiah, Ramkalawan Singh, Joel Ramsingh, Russell Sankeralli, Bhagwandeen Singh, Clive Thomas, Robin Gopaul, and Stephen Eversley — who were hanged over four days in June 1999 for the murders of four members of the Baboolal family. No death warrant has been signed and executed in Trinidad and Tobago in the more than 26 years since.
What is the Pratt and Morgan five-year rule?
The five-year rule comes from Pratt and Morgan v The Attorney General for Jamaica [1993] UKPC 1. The Privy Council held that to execute a prisoner after more than five years on death row from the date of conviction amounts to inhuman and degrading punishment and is unconstitutional. The proper course in such cases is for the death sentence to be commuted to life imprisonment. The rule applies to prisoners in Trinidad and Tobago and has resulted in the commutation of dozens of death sentences over the past three decades.
Why is the mandatory death penalty still on the books if it is "cruel and unusual"?
Because of the savings clause in section 6 of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Chapter 1:01. Section 5 of the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, and the Privy Council has accepted that the mandatory death penalty would, on its merits, fall within that prohibition. However, section 6 preserves any law that was in force before the Constitution came into effect on 1 August 1976 — and section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act, Chapter 11:08 dates from 1925. The Privy Council confirmed in Matthew v The State [2004] UKPC 33 and again in Chandler v The State (No. 2) [2022] UKPC 19 that the savings clause shields the mandatory death penalty from constitutional invalidation, and that abolition is now a matter for Parliament, not the courts.
How many people are on death row in Trinidad and Tobago?
As of public reporting in May 2025, approximately 38 inmates were under sentence of death in Trinidad and Tobago. Of those, only around 18 had been on death row for less than the five-year period set by Pratt and Morgan and were therefore theoretically still eligible for execution. The rest are protected by the five-year rule and, in practice, must have their sentences commuted to life imprisonment. Numbers fluctuate as new convictions are imposed and older sentences are commuted.
Could Parliament abolish the death penalty in Trinidad and Tobago?
Yes. Because the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Chapter 1:01 does not require the death penalty — it merely permits it under "due process of law" — Parliament may abolish capital punishment by ordinary legislation amending section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act, Chapter 11:08. Parliament could also replace the mandatory death sentence with a discretionary death sentence, allowing trial judges to consider the circumstances of the offender and the offence. Multiple legislative attempts have been made — including the Offences Against the Person (Amendment) Act 2000 (never commenced) and the Constitution (Amendment) (Capital Offences) Bill 2011 (defeated) — but none has been carried into law.
What was the difference between Roodal and Matthew?
Roodal v The State [2003] UKPC 78 and Matthew v The State [2004] UKPC 33 are two Privy Council decisions decided just eight months apart on the same constitutional question — and they reached opposite conclusions. In Roodal, a five-member panel held by 3–2 that the savings clause did not protect the mandatory character of the death penalty and that the law should be read as imposing only a discretionary sentence. In Matthew, an enlarged nine-member panel of the Privy Council overruled Roodal by 5–4, holding that the savings clause does protect the mandatory penalty. Matthew remains the law and was reaffirmed in Chandler v The State (No. 2) [2022] UKPC 19.
Will Trinidad and Tobago start executing people again?
There is no realistic prospect of resumed executions in the short term. The combined effect of the Pratt and Morgan five-year rule, the very small number of inmates currently within the eligible window, the absence of operational arrangements for hangings, ongoing constitutional litigation, and political reluctance has meant that no death warrant has been carried out since 1999. The Privy Council in Chandler v The State (No. 2) [2022] UKPC 19 confirmed that the mandatory death penalty remains on the statute book, but as a matter of practice Trinidad and Tobago is classified internationally as abolitionist de facto. Any person concerned about the operation of the death penalty in a specific case should obtain prompt legal advice.
Written by Martin George, Attorney-at-Law. Martin George is the founder and principal attorney of Martin George & Company, with more than 35 years of active legal practice in the courts of Trinidad and Tobago. He is a former Commissioner on the Law Reform Commission of Trinidad and Tobago and a member of the Prime Minister's Constitutional Committee for Internal Self-Government for Tobago. This article is published for general information and public legal education. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, contact Martin George & Company.
Last reviewed: April 2026