LAW REPORT MAY 23

PRIVY COUNCIL I

RHODESIAN WIFE HAS APPEAL AS OF RIGHT

MADZIMBAMUTO v.

LARDNER-BURKE AND

ANOTHER

Before LORD REiD, LoRD Moiuus op

BoRTH-Y-GEsT, LorD PEARCE, LoRD WILBERIORCE, and LoRD PEARSON

The Judicial Commitee of the Privy Council ruled, without giving reasons, that an appellant, wife of an African detained without charge by the Smith regime in Gwelo prison, Rhodesia, has a right of appeal to the Privy Council. Their Lordships gave their ruling on their jurisdiction after hearing affidavit evidence by members of the regime that the regime would not obey any order made by her Majesty on the advice of the Judicial Committee and after considering the reasons why the Appellate Division of the High Court of Rhodesia had refused to make any order when the appellant sought leave to appeal to the Privy CounciL

Their Lordships were continuing the hearing of an appeal by Mrs. Stella Madzimbamuto from that part of the decision of the Appellate Division on January 29 as determined that though her appeal against her husband's detention succeeded on a technical point, the de facto position of the regime was such that the first respondent. Mr. Lardner.Burke, Minister of Justice and Law and Order in the regime. and the second respondent, Mr. Frederick Phillip George, prison superintendent. were entitled to detain and hold in custody without trial persons in Southern Rhodesia, including her husband. He had been rearrested and detained immediately aftes the judgments of the court were delivered.

Mr: Sydney Kentridge, S.C. (of the South African and Rhodesian Bars), and Mr. L. J. Blom-Cooper for the appellant; Mr. J. G. Le Quesne, Q.C., Mr. Andrew Bateson and Mr. Stuart McKinnon as amici curiae instructed by the Treasury Solicitor. The respondents did not appear and were not represented.

Technical point

Mr. Kentridge, continuing his submissions for the appellant, said thal their Lordships when granting leave on Marrch 27 (The Times, March 281 had left to the hearing of the appeal the competency of, and necessity for, the grant of leave by the Board. He submitted that she could appeal as of right, as a "person aggrieved'' within section 71(5) of the legal 1961 Constitution of Rhodesia. That pro vided that " any person aggrieved bi any determination of the Appellate Division of the High Court . .

which concerns the question whethei or not sections 57 to 68 of the De' claration of Rights has been con travened . " could appeal as ol right to the Privy Council.

Although the apPellant had suc ceeded on her appeal on a technica