3.
law
It is essentially a question of domestic policy for east, territory whether to amend its law to abolish the immunity as respects members of the forces of the Crown in right of the government of that territory (which in Some cases expressly include the police) or as regarus lanu, oremises, ships, aircraf or venicles used for the purposes of such forces. On the other hand, there 15 a strong case for each territory to amenu so as to remove the immunity as respects members of the armed forces of the Crown in right of the Government of the Unitea Kingaon and as regarus land, premises, ships, aircraft or vehicles used for the purposes of such forces. Amendments of the latter kina would bring the legal position in the aependent territories into line with that prevailing in the United Kingdom since the 1967 Act. Even though the likelihood of an injured UK serviceman suing in a dependent territory court rather than in the UK courts is perhaps small, the removal of the present disparity in legal position applicable to UK servicemen is a matter to which the Ministry of Defence attach considerable importance. It would also seen desirable in the interests of legal consistency and administrative tiainess.
4. I should therefore be grateful if you would consider within your administration the necessary amendments to bring your Crown Proceedings legislation into line with the law now prevailing in
It would be most helpful if, having done so, you could write to me setting out the result of your consideration and your proposals for amending legislation (preferably in the form of a draft Bill), so that we can consider them with the Ministry of Defence and their legal advisers.
5.
One point you will no doubt particularly want to consider is the appropriate mechanism for reviving the provisions repealed in an emergency see section 2 of the 1937 Act. In order to ensure that the law of the territory stays in step with that of the UK in this regara,
it would probably be best to make local provision equivalent to section 2 out giving the Secretary of State's powers under that section to the Governor acting in accordance with instructions given by the Secretary of State. An oruer coula then be made by the Governor, if so instructed by the Secretary of State, in terms reflecting an order maue by the Secretary of State
under section 2.
6. For St Helena only. The foregoing seems to me applicable to St Helena vecause, by virtue of the English Law (Application) Ordinance 1957, the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 applies in St Helena but the 1937 Act does not. Can you confirm this? By contrast, both 19-7 anu 1957 Acts would appear to apply in Ascension anu Tristan ua Cunha, subject to the usual provisos regarding local circumstances. If this is right, you may need consider action only in relation to St Helena. But I should be graterul
know your conclusions and proposals es regaros ail
ries.
to
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.