Continuation
2.
RESTRICTED AND PERSONAL
two cases. Members will then be shown it. They have not had, nor do I expect them to have, anything else; and no member (other than the Attorney General) has asked to see the Notes of Evidence or the Joint Select Committee material mentioned at the end of Annex II of my 7 February letter.
3. I have already discussed the cases in general terms with Jack Sharpe. I explained the legal position to him, saying that Tacklyn may still apply for special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council but that it is not obliged to grant this. Indeed the Attorney-General's opinion is that it is most unlikely to do so). I added that both his case and Burrows' must anyway be considered by the Advisory Committee as soon as possible, and that I expected to arrange a meeting of that Committee for early next week although I should not myself take any decision until Jack had returned and I had seen him again. I also explained that if I were to decide that the law should take its course we must expect somebody, not necessarily out of the two principals, to petition Her Majesty, in which case the Secretary of State would have to advise Her on the exercise of Her residual prerogative. And I commented that we could not foretell what advice he would then give: on the one hand the long-standing Creech- Jones doctrine (of non-intervention) had never been formally abandoned, but on the other Sir Alec Douglas-Home had some five years ago advised the reversal of a decision taken by the Governor of Hong Kong - where constitutional and other circumstances of course differed very materially from Bermuda's. Finally, I said that in my present view I must be guided by the Advisory Committee if its members were unanimous - but that I thought it possible that they might themselves be guided by any lead I gave them.
4.
Although generally non-committal, Jack was quite definite on one point: he counselled me against giving a lead. He considered, as I do myself (see my 7 February letter), that the members are a fair and representative group. He thus felt that they should be allowed to express the community's opinion. He doubted whether there would be unanimity. But he expressed no view of his own about what decision should in that event be taken.
5.
Like him, I am inclined to expect the Committee to differ- anyway initially, though discussion may lead to a consensus. I nevertheless (as my telegram said) still have no clear idea what advice I am likely to be given: there is insufficient evidence for a considered judgment.
RESTRICTED AND PERSONAL
Cont'd
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.