PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
「「 「:;། wwimmin C.O. 885
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2
regarded certain classes of prisoners. That those classes and the cases to which the law applied would be found stated in the first section.
That the warrant was signed by Sir A. Havelock as Governor of Natal and Governor of Zululand, and that he held separate commissions as Governor of each possession, there being no form of legal or political union between those territories.
That it was a question whether, if the warrant of the Governor of Natal was not a sufficient compliance with the law, the warrant of the Governor of Zululand issued in Natal, where he ordinarily resided, was not such a compliance, as it was held to be by the Supreme Court of Natal (pages 25-27 of record).
That it might be observed that the warrant did not follow the exact wording of
section 1 of the law.
That on the 17th November the Supreme Court of Natal interdicted the removal of Dinizulu from the Colony (page 1 of record), and that on the 20th that order was ⚫ discharged by the Court (pages 14 and 15 of recòrd), and that on the next day Dinizulu was conveyed by the police to the border of the Colony and handed over to the Zululand police and by them conveyed to Eshowe, where a court would shortly assemble for his trial. That that court had been specially constituted to deal with all cases arising out of the recent disturbances.
That it had been suggested that if the case of Dinizulu came within the provisions of the Natal Law of 1880, the subsequent enactment of the Imperial Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, practically superseded the Colonial Law, and that he could only be dealt with under the Act of 1881.
That Mr. Bramston was accordingly to ask us to consider the papers transmitted with his letter, and advise :—
1. Whether, having regard to the circumstances in which Dinizulu arrived in Natal, and his subsequent arrest under the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, he was subject to the Natal Law of 1880?
2. Whether, if so, the Governor's warrant was sufficient in point of form?
3. Whether that law would still be applicable, and whether proceedings could be properly taken under it, notwithstanding the subsequent enactment of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 ?
4. Whether, if the judgment of the Supreme Court of Natal should be reversed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the removal of Dinizulu before such reversal was valid and, if not, whether Dinizulu would have any remedy, and what, against the Governor, or against any other person, in respect of such removal?
5. Whether as Dinizulu was in fact within the jurisdiction of the Special Court in Zululand such reversal would invalidate any proceedings of that Court in respect to Dinizulu which were taken before the determination of his appeal and before such reversal.
That your Lordship would also be glad to be furnished with our advice generally upon those important questions, and that Mr. Bramston was to ask that you might be favoured with our report at an early date, as certain political considerations might be involved.
We have taken the matter into our consideration and, in obedience to your Lordship's commands, have the honour to
Report
(1.) and (2.) That in our opinion Dinizulu was not within the class of persons described in section 1 of the Act of 1880, to which class of persons alone the provisions of that Act refer.
(3) The law of 1880 is operative in respect of the persons described in it notwith- standing the enactment of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881.
(4.) In the event of the Judicial Committee holding that the warrant of the 17th November, under which Dinizulu was detained and deported, was invalid, he would have a remedy by action against the persons who illegally arrested and deported him.
(5.) The result of the appeal to the Judicial Committee would in no way affect the competence of the Special Commission to deal with this case, or the validity of its proceeding therein.
Dinizulu will be before it, and it is not competent to examine the question of the validity of the warrant by virtue of which he has been deported.
3
We are of opinion that a warrant, in substance the same as that of the 17th November, might lawfully have been made under section 35 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, and that even if the Judicial Committee should consider that the mention of the Act of 1880 makes the warrant of the 17th November invalid it would decline to issue an interdict where a valid warrant might have been issued, and the deportation has actually taken place. And further, in this event, the damages recoverable by Dinuzulu would be only nominal.
We have, &c., (Signed) RICHARD E. WEBSTER.
EDWARD CLARKE.
The Right Hon. Lord Knutsford, &c.
&c.
&c.
2
1