13,826.
། ། ། |
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
תו
|| ||
C.O.
Reference :-
885
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
1
SIR,
No. 50.
(SOUTH AFRICA.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
We were honoured with Mr. Bramston's letter of the 24th ultimo, stating that
Royal Courts of Justice, 4th August 1885. with reference to the Law Officers' Report of the 15th November last,* relative to the future government of Bechuanaland and the murder of Christopher Bethell, he was directed to acquaint us that you desired to consult us on the present state of the case, and on the question whether any further steps could usefully be taken in the matter.
That, in pursuance of the advice of the late Law Officers, an Order in Council was issued providing for the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction in Bechuanaland by courts to be erected by the High Commissioner, but that, as we should perceive from the enclosed correspondence, it was thought desirable, in view of the many difficulties which lay in the way of a trial before a regular criminal court, to allow Sir Charles Warren, as General Commanding in Bechuanaland, the option of trying the offenders, caught, by a military court for an offence against the usages of civilised war.
That it being believed that the murderers had taken refuge in the South African Republic, such evidence as was obtainable was directed to be obtained with a view to a demand being made on the Government of the South African Republic for their surrender, as an act of comity, with a view to their being tried either for an ordinary crime or for a military offence against the usages of civilised war.
That, for the purposes of the present reference, it was comparatively immaterial which mode of trial would have been adopted, because, even if it had been a military trial, Lord Derby had enjoined that it was to be as full and fair a one as could be ensured to the accused men.
That the question which immediately appeared to arise was whether the evidence forthcoming against any individual was sufficient to justify a demand for his surrender from a neighbouring State as an act of comity.
That the enclosed despatch from Sir Hercules Robinson contained a full review of the existing evidence, made by Mr. Shippard, a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Cape of Good Hope.
That we should see that, although the murderers had been hitherto spoken of in the plural number, there was no evidence affecting any individual except Joel Van Rooyen, and that in his case the evidence consisted mainly of an alleged voluntary extra-judicial confession of the crime spoken to by a witness who was a namesake.
That, in those circumstances, Mr. Bramston was to inquire whether, in our opinion, ' the evidence was sufficiently strong against Joel Van Rooyen to justify Her Majesty's Government in directing the High Commissioner to demand his surrender.
In compliance with the request contained in Mr. Bramston's letter we have the honour to report-
[Opinion of Attorney-General.]
That, even assuming that Her Majesty's Government have the right to demand the surrender of Joel Van Rooyen, on which point I entertain grave doubt, the evidence is not, in my opinion, sufficiently strong to warrant Her Majesty's Government in instructing the High Commissioner to make such demand.
(Signed) R. E. WEBSTER.
[Opinion of Solicitor-General.]
That I cannot recommend Her Majesty's Government to direct the High Com- missioner to demand the surrender of Van Rooyen. I base my opinion not merely on the weakness of the evidence, but on the consideration that neither of the tribunals suggested would have jurisdiction, if he were surrendered, to try him for the offence which he is alleged to have committed.
J. E. GORST.
The Right Hon. Colonel Stanley, M.P.
&c.
&c.
&c.
* No. 28.
(Signed)
▲ 15927-49. 35.-19/85.