Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Court of Appeal of Pitcairn Islands

Queen v 7 Named Accused [2004] PNCA 1; CA 1-7 2004 (5 August 2004)

IN THE PITCAIRN COURT OF APPEAL

CA 1-7/2004

IN THE MATTER of applications for leave to appeal
by seven named accused

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

AND

SEVEN NAMED ACCUSED

Hearing: 26, 27 and 28 July 2004

Coram: Henry P
Barker JA
Neazor JA

Counsel: Mr K Raftery for the Crown
Mr P Dacre (Public Defender), Mr A Cook QC (of the New South Wales Bar) and Mr A Roberts, for the Applicants

Judgment: 5 August 2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

[1] The applicants, all inhabitants of Pitcairn Island, have been committed for trial in the Supreme Court on various charges brought under United Kingdom criminal statutes. Following committal they applied jointly to the Supreme Court by way of a document headed "Preliminary Applications". Although so described, those in issue would seem not to come within that description. Essentially they seek either review or declaratory relief. For the hearing of the applications the Supreme Court comprised Blackie CJ, Lovell-Smith and Johnson JJ sitting as a Full Court. A number of separate issues were addressed in the judgment of the Supreme Court which was delivered on 19 April 2004. In seeking the leave of this Court to appeal, the applicants pursued only the following applications, on which we heard substantive argument:

1. Declaring that the Orders in Council from 1859 onwards insofar as they purported to apply to Pitcairn were unlawful, illegal, invalid, null and void and. had no force or effect so that it follows that any purported ordinances or legislation based on those Orders in Council could not justify any action as being legal.
   
2. The following were unlawful, illegal, invalid, null and void and had no force or effect:
   
   1. The purported appointment of the Supreme Court Justices and the Magistrates;
      
   2. The deposition hearings purporting to commit the 7 named accused for trial.
      

[2] In addition this Court was asked to declare the decision of the Supreme Court invalid because the Judges sat as a Full Court, a course to which unsuccessful objection had been taken.

[3] As stated in the Supreme Court judgment, the early and interesting history of the remote territory known as Pitcairn Island is well known as a consequence of it having been settled in 1790 following the mutiny on HMAV Bounty