CO885-(13-15) — Page 55

2834.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TILE C.O.885

13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

1

MY LORD,

No. 111.

(CYPRUS.)

LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.

Royal Courts of Justice, 30th January 1888. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Sir J. Pauncefote's letter of the 20th instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us the papers noted in the accompanying list, relative to the case of one Hussein Hadji Mehmet, a Mussulman native of Nicosia in the Island of Cyprus, who on the 6th of December last was convicted before the Assize Court of that place of the murder of a woman called Latifé, and sentenced to death accordingly.

That in consequence, however, of the representations made on behalf of the convict to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople by the Grand Vizier, and by the Turkish Ambassador at the Court of St. James' to the Secretary of State, it was thought advisable to suspend the execution of the sentence until Her Majesty's Government could have the opportunity of considering fully the circumstances under which the

crime was committed.

That it would be seen, moreover, from the accompanying papers that strong reasons of a political and diplomatic nature existed in favour of a commutation of the death sentence, if such a course could, consistently with the interests of justice, be pursued.

That a transcript of the notes of the evidence taken at the trial by the Chief Justice of Cyprus who presided over the Court on the occasion was enclosed, together with copies of a petition dated December 8th from the mother of the convict, and of a further petition dated December 18th from the mother and brother, and of the remarks of the Chief Justice thereon respectively.

That the existing judicial system of Cyprus was constituted and the procedure of its Courts prescribed by the Order in Council of November 30th, 1882; and that the convict was tried by a Court formed under Article VI. of that Order, administering Ottoman law in accordance with Article 23 thereof.

That the Assize Court derived its authority to try the case from Article 50, and that the procedure at the trial was regulated by Chapter XX, Articles 120, 137, of the same Order.

That it would be observed that there was as yet no "trial by Jury" in Cyprus; that

an Ottoman subject charged with murder was, however, tried by a Court of five, or at

all events four, judges, and consisting of-

(1.) The Chief Justice of Cyprus,

(2.) The Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court,

(3.) The President of the District Court,

(4 & 5.) Two native members of the same District Court, one being a Christian and

the other a Moslem by religion.

That Sir J. Pauncefote was also to bring to our attention Article 196 of the Order as dealing specifically with the cases in which an accused person could or could not be lawfully convicted upon the evidence of a single witness.

That by clause 22 of the previous Order in Council of September 14, 1878 (which clauso, although the Order in Council had in some other respects been modified by subsequent legislation, was still in force), provision was made for the exercise of power and jurisdiction by Her Majesty in and over the Island of Cyprus, and that the High Commissioner of that Island" may, as he shall see occasion, in Her Majesty's name " and on her behalf, grant to any offender convicted of any crime in any Court, or before any judge, justice, or magistrate within the said Island, a free and unconditional pardon

66

+4

14

56

or a pardon subject to such conditions as may at any time be lawfully thereunto annexed, or any respite of the execution of the sentence of any such offender for such period as may to him seem fit."

91

That other papers, bearing rather on the diplomatic than the purely legal aspects of the case, were also onclosed for our information.

That Sir J. Pauncefote was to request that we would take the papers transmitted with his letter into our consideration, and that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion as to whether, having regard to all the circumstances, the case was one in which

+ 52950.-11. 23.-2/58. G. 19.