I first heard of Pitcairn Island in 2005. It is a fascinating place…
Situated at latitude 25º04’ South and longitude 130º06’ West, lies Pitcairn
Island. This geographic location places it in the Pacific Ocean, midway
between New Zealand and Chile, on the west coast of South America. There
are three associated islands, making up the Pitcairn Group; namely,
Henderson, Oeno and Ducie. The islands are widely scattered over several
hundred square miles of ocean. Only Pitcairn has any permanent population.
The closest inhabited neighbour some 300 miles to the north-west - the eastern most extremity of
French Polynesia.
Access to Pitcairn and its associated islands can be gained only by sea. Being
of volcanic origin, the Island has a steep, rocky shoreline and is not amenable
to port or harbour facilities. Visiting ships, including those bringing supplies,
must anchor off the Island and proceed ship-to-shore by way of the Island’s
long-boats. There are no facilities for any type of aircraft. In size, Pitcairn is
approximately 2½ miles long and 1 mile wide, covering 1100 acres. Fertile soil
and a favourable climate mean that a wide range of fruit and vegetables can be
grown.
The early history of the Island, since its discovery during the course of the
voyage of HMS Swallow in 1767 and subsequently being named after midshipman
Pitcairn, is comparatively well-known. Historical events relating to
Captain Bligh, Fletcher Christian, HMAV Bounty, the mutineers and their
settlement on Pitcairn Island have been the subject of numerous books,
commentaries and feature films for almost 200 years.
Pitcairn is a British overseas territory, or is it?
In THE PITCAIRN ISLANDS SUPREME COURT Trials No 1-55/2003 BETWEEN THE QUEEN (in her right as the Queen of the United Kingdom, which includes British Overseas Territories) AND 7 NAMED ACCUSED heard in November 2003 the question of soverignty was raised.
This appears on the surface to be a classic process of decolonisation. Inhabitants of the Island sought to sever their links with the mother country. However what makes Pitcairn unusual is their motives for doing so. It appears they were not ones of the right to self determination rather the desire for independence was to avoid prosecution.
In the above case the Public Defender conceded that the famous historic mutineers appear to have been British subjects by virtue of the circumstances of their birth. All nine on board the Bounty had allegedly committed the crimes of mutiny and piracy and, after their arrival, they committed the treasonable offence of burning a British ship of war.
Lets look at the judgement (emphasis added by this author). The research that went into this case must have been huge. I can imagine that Barristers spending hours in Libraries.Here is just a taste of the detail of the case.
[Mutiny] was an offence punishable by death, under the Naval
Dockyards Act 12 Geo III c.24. He argued that, because these men were
“fugitives from the laws of England”, and had sought out Pitcairn to enable
them to be out of reach of the British justice system, they had broken their
compact with the Sovereign and were no longer British citizens.
A parallel argument was also raised, that the crimes they allegedly committed
(in particular, treason), were so serious that a pardon from the Monarch would
have been out of the question. The bond of allegiance had been broken by that
defiant act of burning the ship. The Public Defender said that no British
subjects occupied the Island until Buffett, Evans and Nobbs took up residence
in Pitcairn in the 1820’s.
When the Royal Navy discovered, in 1814, that John Adams, the sole
surviving mutineer, was alive on Pitcairn, no action was taken to have him
returned and tried for the crime of treason. John Adams was never officially
pardoned. He remained liable to be tried for his crimes until his death, in 1829.
In reply, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the mutineers were British
subjects by birth, having been born in the United Kingdom, and remained so
until their respective deaths. When they arrived in 1790, Pitcairn was
uninhabited. He referred to Joyce, which clearly states that the commission of
a crime, even treason, does not preclude the Crown’s exercise of sovereignty
as the offender remains a British subject. The Public Prosecutor noted that
some of the other Bounty mutineers, located in Tahiti, and subsequently tried
were in fact pardoned.
Joyce is a House of Lords decision involving an American alien holding a
British passport. He was commonly referred to as “Lord Haw Haw”, as he
broadcast Nazi propaganda from Germany to Great Britain during World War
II. Joyce was convicted of high treason under the Treason Act 1351, and
sentenced to death. He appealed. The House of Lords unanimously held that an
alien living abroad holding a British passport enjoys the protection of the
Crown, providing he has not renounced this protection.
The accused on Pitcairn Island are holders of United Kingdom passports. The
Prosecution referred to His Lordship’s statement at 369 as relevant:
The terms of a passport are familiar. It is thus described by Lord Alverstone C.J.,
in R v Brailsford (I): “It is a document issued in the name of the sovereign on the
responsibility of a minister of the Crown to a named individual, intended to be
presented to the governments of foreign nations and to be used for that individual’s
protection as a British subject in foreign countries.”
But the possession of a passport by one who is not a British subject gives him
rights and imposes upon the sovereign obligations which would otherwise not be
given or imposed.
The Prosecutor submitted that the present inhabitants of Pitcairn are clearly
British subjects, owing to the mutineers remaining subjects of the British
Crown.
The Public Defender contended that the
mutineers’ children were not British subjects because their mothers were
Tahitian and their fathers were liable for the crime of treason (inter alia).
There were 24 children born to the mutineers and their Tahitian partners. No
children were born of the union of any of the Tahitian men and women on
Pitcairn. It is accepted that these 24 children, who survived their fathers,
formed the nucleus of all the Pitcairn Island population thereafter.
The Defender contend that, by virtue of s 2 of the statutes of IV Geo. 2 c.21 &
XIII Geo. 3. c.21, Pitcairn children lost their status as British subjects (if they
ever had it) and, therefore, so did their children, and so on. The reason for their
apparent loss of British status is that the children were born out of wedlock and
outside the realms of Great Britain. At law, illegitimate children took the
nationality of their mothers at birth, which in this case would have been
Tahitian. The mutineers and their descendants did not undergo naturalisation
procedures, nor did they become subjects by conquest.
On 12 October 2004, the Privy Council agreed to hear the case against British sovereignty on Pitcairn, If the Privy Council had ruled in favour of the islanders, the trial and its conclusions would have been deemed null and void. However they did not. So to this day Pitcairn remains British.
Comments