Privy Council gives short shrift to Pitcairn case

An appeal by six Pitcairn Islanders against serious sex convictions ended in just two days - well short of the two weeks the hearing was expected to take.

Six Pitcairn men, convicted of either rape or indecent assault in 2004, had appealed their sentences to the Privy Council, claiming they were not British subjects and did not know or understand British law.

The historic hearing in London ended after the court refused to hear arguments about the history of the island, undermining the appellants' claims.

The decision was reserved.

Counsel for the men had hoped to argue that Pitcairn had been settled by Fletcher Christian and his fellow mutineers from the Bounty, so they and their descendants had lived outside the law.

But the court refused to hear the claims, saying the Queen had long claimed the island and it was not the court's place to challenge that.

The men's lawyers were left to argue that the earlier trials amounted to an abuse of legal process.

David Perry, acting for Terry Young, argued that Pitcairners did not know or understand British law, as British Governors had failed to publish the law, especially regarding sexual offences, on the island as required under Pitcairn ordinances.

In contrast to the age of consent in Britain, the age of consent on the island had fluctuated from 12 to 15 and, more recently, to 16 years old.

Island law held that carnal knowledge of a child aged 12-15 was punishable by just 100 days in prison, and there had been debate as to whether that was too severe.

Pitcairn's isolation, its lack of legal institutions and the fact the island's sole legal adviser lived off island meant the law was not easily known.

He asked, given the time taken for the appeal, that the court might consider "some discount or reduction of the sentence", perhaps of a year or 18 months.

For the Crown, Kieran Raftery said the Governor was required to publish only "the laws he enacted and he did not enact the Sexual Offences Act 1956, so his obligations were fulfilled".

Mr Raftery argued that it was no surprise to the islanders that rape would be severely punished. Victims had testified that they had been told not to tell anyone about the abuse, signalling that the offenders knew what they were doing was wrong.

"The only surprise, in fact, is that the women had come forward to complain. There's no doubt that islanders knew full well that rape was serious, was a crime and would be dealt with."

The island had its own British-appointed legal adviser, so Pitcairners "have more ready access to legal advice for free than perhaps the residents of Fulham".

Lord Hope pointed out that the crimes went back to 1964, an "enormous" amount of time when the authorities seemed to do nothing to enforce the law.

Mr Raftery conceded that British authorities were aware of very young pregnancies on the island, but their guilt over not acting sooner did not warrant the sentence being quashed.

"No one knew there were shocking rapes going on. As soon as they knew, they did something about it."

Counsel for the appellants had argued that the delay between when the police investigations had ended in May 2001 and charges laid in early 2003 was a "breach of governance", but Mr Raftery said the number of complaints and amount of material slowed things down.

Britain and New Zealand had negotiated a legal treaty to allow the Pitcairn court to sit in New Zealand.

"There was no delay of the sort that would offend justice," he said.