DOCSLIB.ORG

In the Pitcairn Islands Supreme Court T 1/2011 In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the Pitcairn Islands Supreme Court T 1/2011 In IN THE PITCAIRN ISLANDS SUPREME COURT T 1/2011 IN THE MATTER under the Constitution of Pitcairn and the Bill of Rights 1688 AND IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to the vires of parts of the Pitcairn Constitution being ultra vires the Bill of Rights 1688 AND IN THE MATTER OF a constitutional challenge and the refusal of the Magistrates Court to refer a constitutional challenge to the Supreme Court and the failure of the Supreme Court to consider an appeal from the Magistrates Court AND CP 1/2013 IN THE MATTER OF a judicial review of the Attorney General and Governor BETWEEN MICHAEL WARREN Applicant/Appellant AND THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 07 to 11 and 14 to 17 April 2014; 01 August 2014; 23 September 2014 Appearances: Kieran Raftery and Simon Mount for the Crown Tony Ellis and Simon Park (on 23 September 2014) for Applicant/Appellant Judgment: 28 November 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT OF HAINES J ______________________________________________________________________ This judgment was delivered by me on 28 November 2014 at 10 am pursuant to the directions of Haines J Deputy Registrar Table of Contents Para Nr Introduction [1] Course of the hearing [11] The application for a stay on the grounds of abuse of process – the self- determination claim The submission [19] The right to self-determination – sources [22] Ius cogens [24] Internal self-determination – treaty obligations of the UK – the Charter of the United Nations [32] Internal self-determination – treaty obligations of the UK – the ICCPR [37] Internal self-determination of Pitcairn Island – context [47] The new governance structure which took effect on 1 April 2009 [49] The new 2010 Constitution – consultations leading to [59] The claim that the right to internal self-determination has been breached [61] Discussion – the evidence [64] The self-determination claim – overall conclusions [73] The application under the Bill of Rights 1688 The submission [78] Whether the Bill of Rights 1688 has application [82] The British Settlements Act 1887 [83] The application of English law in Pitcairn [91] The appeal against the Magistrate's committal decision Background [102] Whether a right of appeal [107] Whether appeal determined by Lovell-Smith J [109] Discussion – whether Magistrate has jurisdiction to determine admissibility of evidence [111] Discussion – the question of a reference under the Constitution [125] The application by the Crown under s 70AA of the Justice Ordinance Background [131] The four new challenges [136] Sgt Medland not validly appointed – no written notice of appointment [138] Appointment of Sgt Medland invalid as oath not administered by Magistrate [146] Sgt Medland not independent [149] Whether the Governor caused the oaths to be administered to the Island Magistrate [161] Overall conclusion on the Crown application under s 70AA of the Justice Ordinance [173] The challenges relating to the judicial office of Chief Justice [174] The facts relevant to the appointment of the Chief Justice [181] Whether Chief Justice swore an invalid judicial oath – preliminary issues – the validity of his appointment and the form of the oaths [185] The manner in which the oaths were to be sworn [192] Whether oaths required to be administered by a judicial officer in open court at a hearing held on Pitcairn [200] Oath taken before Governor’s seal attached to instrument of appointment [218] The alleged suppression of the announcement of the appointment of the Chief Justice [224] Failure to advise Constitution “unworkable” [227] Constitution s 43(4) – oral but not written advice [229] The “maverick” point [241] The Joint Minute of 12 July 2013 [244] Further challenges to the appointment and independence of the Pitcairn judiciary [246] The Bangalore Principles [249] Judges who are “part-time” [257] Community input in relation to judicial appointments [262] The “limited pool” challenge [271] The remuneration issue [279] The disqualification point [296] The application for a stay on the grounds of abuse of process – general [305] Abuse of process – the law [307] The application for a stay on the grounds of abuse of process – the balance of the claims The discrimination point [310] The Deputy Governor point [324] Whether Pitcairn Public Prosecutor properly appointed [334] The Pitcairn Public Prosecutor and the “corruption” of the Pitcairn judicial system [338] The prosecution guidelines point [350] Challenge to the appointment of Mr Raftery and Mr Mount as prosecutors [359] The “judicial colonialism” point [372] The complaint that the laws of Pitcairn are not accessible [380] The committal hearing – whether lawful for Magistrate’s Court to sit in New Zealand [389] Overall conclusion on abuse of process argument [399] The second constitutional and abuse of process challenge [400] The Public Prosecutor point – tainting [402] Independence compromised by legislation [403] Island Magistrate judge in own cause [414] Further allegations – overview [426] The separation of powers issue [427] The “part time judge” point [436] The “payment of money” point [437] The question of the Registrar’s independence [441] The submission that the Presiding Judge resign [448] The judicial review proceedings – determining the procedure Background [452] Discussion [456] Conclusion [466] Overall Conclusion [467] Introduction [1] Mr Warren lives on Pitcairn Island. He is charged with twenty counts of possessing child pornography contrary to s 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (UK). He also faces five charges under the Pitcairn Summary Offences Ordinance for possessing indecent articles. The Criminal Justice Act charges are triable only in the Supreme Court. [2] On 1 August 2011, Senior Magistrate RKM Hawk committed Mr Warren to the Supreme Court for trial. The Senior Magistrate rejected a submission by Mr Warren that he (the Senior Magistrate) had power to determine the admissibility of the evidence on which the Crown relied. He further rejected a submission that questions of admissibility should be referred to the Supreme Court pursuant to the provisions of s 5(7) of the Constitution of Pitcairn. [3] In a document dated 19 August 2011, Mr Warren appealed the decision to commit him for trial. He also filed a number of other proceedings, some of which were dealt with by Lovell-Smith J in her judgment given on 12 October 2012. On 26 October 2012, Mr Warren filed a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeal. Some, but not all, of the grounds of appeal have been dealt with by the Court of Appeal in decisions given on 12 April 2013, 12 August 2013 and 21 August 2013. [4] Apart from the matters yet to be determined by the Court of Appeal, there remain in the Supreme Court a number of proceedings and other matters which have not been resolved or addressed by the judgment given by Lovell-Smith J. [5] Clarification of the issues thought to be outstanding and awaiting determination either in the Supreme Court or in the Court of Appeal was provided on 11 September 2013, when counsel filed in the latter court a joint memorandum. It recorded there were then eight applications before the Supreme Court which had either not been determined formally or not determined at all. One has since been abandoned by Mr Warren (it has been deleted from the list which follows), while the last four have since been added, leaving the following: (a) Mr Warren’s appeal dated 19 August 2011 against the Magistrate’s committal decision. (b) Mr Warren’s application (undated but filed on 12 January 2012) for orders based on the Bill of Rights 1688. (c) The Crown’s application dated 10 April 2013 under s 70AA of the Justice Ordinance for a ruling on the admissibility of evidence. (d) Mr Warren’s application of 3 May 2013 for a stay of prosecution on the grounds of abuse of process. (e) Mr Warren’s application dated 3 May 2013 for a declaration that Blackie CJ, Lovell-Smith J and Senior Magistrate Hawk have not lawfully entered office or have vacated their office (“a Quo Warranto type application”). (f) In the alternative to (e), Mr Warren’s application dated 3 May 2013 for an order of mandamus requiring Blackie CJ, Lovell-Smith J and Senior Magistrate Hawk to swear their oaths in open court. (g) The application for a judicial review filed by Mr Warren on or about 11 September 2013 in this Court’s civil jurisdiction. The procedure to be followed must now be determined and, in particular, whether leave to bring the proceedings is required. (h) The submission dated 4 April 2014 that Haines J has a duty to resign. (i) The oral submission made on 7 April 2014 that Mr Raftery and Mr Mount have not been properly appointed as prosecutors and have no standing before the Court. (j) The second constitutional challenge and abuse of process challenge dated 29 May 2014. (k) The third constitutional challenge and abuse of process challenge dated 8 August 2014. [6] At different times during the hearing I expressed concern that some of the identified issues have either been addressed by Lovell-Smith J or are presently before the Court of Appeal. However, all counsel were in agreement that precise identification of the matters truly unresolved at Supreme Court level would be a difficult and potentially contentious exercise. It was said the abuse of process claim in particular made it inherently difficult to identify with any degree of precision what had been argued and determined in the course of the earlier hearings. It was necessary that the hearing before me (and the eventual judgment) should canvass each of the issues listed above so that when the judgment is appealed to the Court of Appeal, that Court will be in a position to address all issues between the parties without having to request the Supreme Court to determine any matter inadvertently overlooked.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Trove of Old Post Office Photos from Pitcairn New Zealand Postal
    THE PITCAIRN LOG Vol. 4, No. 2 Page ...... April 204 Vol. 4, No. 2 April - June 204 Whole No. 63 Trove of old post office photos from Pitcairn New Zealand Postal Agency era to 1940s post office. ISSN: 0888-675X Page 2 ...... April 204 Vol. 4, No. 2 THE PITCAIRN LOG Vol. 4, No. 2 -- Whole Number 63 April - June 204 STUDY GROUP OFFICERS CONTENTS PRESIDENT Officers, Contents ............................................................ 2 Dr. Vernon N. Kisling, Jr. President’s Message, by Dr. Vernon N. Kisling Jr. ......... 3 P.O. Box 1511 Pitcairn’s Definitive Issues, by Wilfred Bloom ............. 4-6 High Springs, FL 32655 USA email: [email protected] Early Pitcairn photos .................................................... 7-9 VICE PRESIDENT Unique box made by John Buffett finds its way to the Mr. Steve Pendleton Pitcairn Museum, by Kari Young .............................. 0-11 3006 Mary Avenue West Pitcairn Trivia, by Barbara Kuchau ................................ 11 Visalia, CA 93277 USA email: [email protected] SECRETARY What should PISG’s position be vis-à-vis the Pitcairn Mr. Ed Morgan Islands Philatelic Bureau? by Steve Pendleton ......... 2-3 26 St. Julians Ct. What are the print quantities for Pitcairn stamps, and how Pawleys Island, SC 29585-6309 USA email: [email protected] many are sent to the island? by Mark Butterline ........... 3 INTERIM TREASURER Seeking information on John Samuel ............................ 3 Mr. Mark A. Butterline Ted Cookson interviews Bradley W. Brunsell ..........4-5 6 Carbone Circle Pitcairn Trivia Answers, by Barbara Kuchau ............... 5 Maynard, MA 01754 USA email: [email protected] Interim Treasurer’s Report, by Mark Butterline ............ 6 DIRECTORS-AT-LARGE New Issues (Ship Landing Point) ................................
    [Show full text]
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 8 January 2011
    United Nations A/AC.109/2011/4 General Assembly Distr.: General 8 January 2011 Original: English Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples Pitcairn Working paper prepared by the Secretariat Contents Page I. General ....................................................................... 2 II. Constitutional, legal and political issues ............................................ 2 A. Electoral qualifications...................................................... 3 B. Judicial system and human rights ............................................. 3 III. Budget ....................................................................... 5 IV. Economic and social conditions ................................................... 5 A. Transport ................................................................. 6 B. Communications and power supply............................................ 6 C. Land tenure ............................................................... 7 D. Employment .............................................................. 7 E. Education ................................................................. 7 F. Health care................................................................ 8 G. Criminal justice ............................................................ 8 V. Relations with international organizations and partners................................ 9 VI. Future status of the Territory ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • British Overseas Territories Law
    British Overseas Territories Law Second Edition Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson HART PUBLISHING Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Kemp House , Chawley Park, Cumnor Hill, Oxford , OX2 9PH , UK HART PUBLISHING, the Hart/Stag logo, BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2018 First edition published in 2011 Copyright © Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson , 2018 Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identifi ed as Authors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this work, no responsibility for loss or damage occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any statement in it can be accepted by the authors, editors or publishers. All UK Government legislation and other public sector information used in the work is Crown Copyright © . All House of Lords and House of Commons information used in the work is Parliamentary Copyright © . This information is reused under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 ( http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3 ) except where otherwise stated. All Eur-lex material used in the work is © European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ , 1998–2018. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Reform in the English-Speaking Caribbean: Challenges and Prospects
    Constitutional Reform in the English-Speaking Caribbean: Challenges and Prospects A report prepared for the Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum January 2011 The Constitutional Design Group Principals Zachary Elkins | [email protected] Tom Ginsburg | [email protected] Lead Research Associate Justin Blount | [email protected] The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect those of CPPF or the Social Science Research Council. Constitutional Reform in the ESC p. 2 CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3 Historical Perspectives on Constitutional Reform in the ESC ................................................. 4 Decolonization and the Independece Constitutions ............................................................... 4 The Rise and Fall of the West Indies Federation ................................................................... 5 Characteristics of ESC Constitutions ......................................................................................... 6 Some General Notes on the Nature of ESC Constitutional Texts ......................................... 7 Executives, Legislatures, and the Judiciary ........................................................................... 8 Fidelity to the Westminster Parliamentary System ........................................................... 8 The Judiciary .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • In the Privy Council on Appeal from the Court of Appeal of Pitcairn Islands
    IN THE PRIVY COUNCIL ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF PITCAIRN ISLANDS No. of 2004 BETWEEN STEVENS RAYMOND CHRISTIAN First Appellant LEN CALVIN DAVIS BROWN Second Appellant LEN CARLISLE BROWN Third Appellant DENNIS RAY CHRISTIAN Fourth Appellant CARLISLE TERRY YOUNG Fifth Appellant RANDALL KAY CHRISTIAN Sixth Appellant A N D THE QUEEN Respondent CASE FOR STEVENS RAYMOND CHRISTIAN AND LEN CARLISLE BROWN PETITIONERS' SOLICITORS: Alan Taylor & Co Solicitors - Privy Council Agents Mynott House, 14 Bowling Green Lane Clerkenwell, LONDON EC1R 0BD ATTENTION: Mr D J Moloney FACSIMILE NO: 020 7251 6222 TELEPHONE NO: 020 7251 3222 6 PART I - INTRODUCTION CHARGES The Appellants have been convicted in the Pitcairn Islands Supreme Court of the following: (a) Stevens Raymond Christian Charges (i) Rape contrary to s7 of the Judicature Ordinance 1961 and s1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (x4); (ii) Rape contrary to s14 of the Judicature Ordinance 1970 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Sentence 4 years imprisonment (b) Len Carlisle Brown Charges Rape contrary to s7 of the Judicature Ordinance 1961, the Judicature Ordinance 1970, and s1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (x2). Sentence 2 years imprisonment with leave to apply for home detention The sentences have been suspended and the Appellants remain on bail pending the determination of this appeal. HUMAN RIGHTS In relation to human rights issues, contrary to an earlier apparent concession by the Public Prosecutor that the Human Rights Act 1978 applied to the Pitcairn Islands, it would appear not to have been extended to them, at least in so far as the necessary protocols to the Convention have not been signed to enable Pitcairners to appear before the European Court: R (Quark Fisheries Ltd) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2005] 3 WLR 7 837 (Tab ).
    [Show full text]
  • UK Overseas Territories
    INFORMATION PAPER United Kingdom Overseas Territories - Toponymic Information United Kingdom Overseas Territories (UKOTs), also known as British Overseas Territories (BOTs), have constitutional and historical links with the United Kingdom, but do not form part of the United Kingdom itself. The Queen is the Head of State of all the UKOTs, and she is represented by a Governor or Commissioner (apart from the UK Sovereign Base Areas that are administered by MOD). Each Territory has its own Constitution, its own Government and its own local laws. The 14 territories are: Anguilla; Bermuda; British Antarctic Territory (BAT); British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT); British Virgin Islands; Cayman Islands; Falkland Islands; Gibraltar; Montserrat; Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands; Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha; South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; Turks and Caicos Islands; UK Sovereign Base Areas. PCGN recommend the term ‘British Overseas Territory Capital’ for the administrative centres of UKOTs. Production of mapping over the UKOTs does not take place systematically in the UK. Maps produced by the relevant territory, preferably by official bodies such as the local government or tourism authority, should be used for current geographical names. National government websites could also be used as an additional reference. Additionally, FCDO and MOD briefing maps may be used as a source for names in UKOTs. See the FCDO White Paper for more information about the UKOTs. ANGUILLA The territory, situated in the Caribbean, consists of the main island of Anguilla plus some smaller, mostly uninhabited islands. It is separated from the island of Saint Martin (split between Saint-Martin (France) and Sint Maarten (Netherlands)), 17km to the south, by the Anguilla Channel.
    [Show full text]
  • The Equal Rights Trust Legal Brief for Kanalesingam
    The Equal Rights Trust Legal Brief For Kanalesingam Introduction 1. This legal brief is provided by The Equal Rights Trust (ERT) to Kanesalingam & Co (Kanesalingam). It sets out international and comparative law and jurisprudence arguments in relation to the current case (the Judicial Review) before the High Court in Malaya at Seremban, in which Kanesalingam & Co currently represents (1) Muhamad Juzaili Bin Mohd Khamis, (2) Shukur Bin Jani, (3) Wan Fairol Bin Wan Ismail, and (4) Adam Shazrul Bin Mohd Yusoff in their judicial review claim against (1) the State Government of Negeri Sembilan, (2) the Islamic Affairs Department of ENgeri Sembilan, (3) the Director adn/or highest ranked officer within the Islamic Affairs Department of Negeri Sembilan, (4) the Chief Syariah Enforcement Officer of Negeri Sembilan, and (5) the Chief Syariah Prosecutor of Negeri Sembilan. 2. ERT is an independent international organisation whose purpose is to combat discrimination and promote equality as a fundamental human right and a basic principle of social justice. Established as a resource centre and a think tank, it focuses on the complex relationship between different types of discrimination, developing strategies for translating the principles of equality into practice and balancing the principle of non-discrimination with other rights. The Board and staff of ERT are qualified experts in human rights law and non-discrimination. ERT has professional expertise on equality and non-discrimination law, and its core work focuses on legal research on issues of discrimination. 3. In this brief, ERT provides arguments on which Kanesalingam may wish to rely in their submissions to the High Court to argue that Section 66 of the Syariah Criminal (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 1992 (Section 66) violates Article 8 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia (Article 8) by discriminating against the applicants, and others in a similar situation to the applicants, on the ground of their gender identity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pitcairn Islands the World’S Largest Fully Protected Marine Reserve
    A fact sheet from March 2015 The Pitcairn Islands The world’s largest fully protected marine reserve Overview In March 2015, the United Kingdom declared the world’s largest fully protected marine reserve in the remote waters surrounding the Pitcairn Islands in the South Pacific Ocean. The designation marks the first time any government has combined creation of a fully protected marine area with detailed plans for surveillance and enforcement that include use of the most up-to-date technology available. This approach sets a new standard for the comprehensive monitoring of protected areas. In 2013, The Pew Charitable Trusts and The National Geographic Society joined the local government, the Pitcairn Island Council, in submitting a proposal calling for creation of a marine reserve to protect these spectacular waters. The Pitcairn Islands Marine Reserve spans 834,334 square kilometres (322,138 square miles). Together with the Chagos Marine Reserve in the Indian Ocean, designated in 2010, the United Kingdom has created the world’s two biggest fully protected marine areas, totalling 1,474,334 square kilometres (569,243 square miles). Through these actions, the United Kingdom—caretaker of the fifth-greatest amount of marine habitat of any country in the world—has established its place as a global leader in ocean conservation. Pitcairn Islands Marine Reserve Traditional and cultural non-commercial fishing by the Pitcairn islanders and their visitors is permitted within 2 nautical miles of the summit of 40 Mile Reef and in a transit zone between Pitcairn and 40 Mile Reef. © 2015 The Pew Charitable Trusts Encompassing 99 per cent of Pitcairn’s exclusive economic zone, the Pitcairn Islands Marine Reserve is about 3½ times the size of the land area of the United Kingdom.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
    HOUSE OF LORDS Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee 32nd Report of Session 2019–21 Drawn to the special attention of the House: Draft Customs Safety, Security and Economic Operators Registration and Identi ication (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Ozone-Depleting Substances and Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (UK(NI) Indication) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and one related instrument Human Medicines (Coronavirus and Influenza) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 Includes information paragraphs on: 3 instruments relating to COVID-19 Draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Relevant Court) (Retained EU Case Law) Draft Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2020 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Hazardous Substances and Packaging Draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment (Legislative Functions and Amendment) (EU etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Draft Law Enforcement and Security (Separation Communications (Amendments etc) (EU Issues etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Plant Health (Amendment Etc.) (EU Draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products Exit) Regulations 2020 and Energy Information (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Plant Health (Phytosanitary Conditions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Draft Environment and Wildlife Regulations 2020 (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Ordered to be printed 27 October 2020 and published 29 October 2020 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords HL Paper 159 Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee The Committee’s terms of reference, as amended on 11 July 2018, are set out on the website but are, broadly: To report on draft instruments and memoranda laid before Parliament under sections 8, 9 and 23(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 2 February 2021
    United Nations A/AC.109/2021/12 General Assembly Distr.: General 2 February 2021 Original: English Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples Pitcairn Working paper prepared by the Secretariat Contents Page The Territory at a glance ......................................................... 3 I. Constitutional, legal and political issues ............................................ 4 A. Electoral qualifications ...................................................... 4 B. Judicial system and human rights ............................................. 5 II. Budget ....................................................................... 5 III. Economic and social conditions ................................................... 6 A. Transport ................................................................. 8 B. Communications and power supply ............................................ 8 C. Land tenure ............................................................... 9 D. Employment .............................................................. 9 E. Education ................................................................. 9 F. Health care ................................................................ 10 G. Criminal justice ............................................................ 10 IV. Environment .................................................................. 11 V. Relations with international organizations and partners...............................
    [Show full text]
  • The Pitcairn Islands Marine Reserve (PDF)
    A fact sheet from March 2015 The Pitcairn Islands Marine Reserve A global benchmark in marine protection Overview In September 2016, the United Kingdom created a fully protected marine reserve spanning about 830,000 square kilometres (320,465 square miles) in the remote waters surrounding the Pitcairn Islands in the South Pacific Ocean. The designation marked the first time that any government combined creation of a large, isolated and fully protected marine area with detailed plans for surveillance and enforcement that included use of the most up-to-date technology. This approach set a new standard for the comprehensive monitoring of protected areas. Three years earlier, in 2013, The Pew Trusts and the National Geographic Society had joined the local government, the Pitcairn Island Council, in submitting a proposal calling for creation of a marine reserve to safeguard these waters that teem with life. Together with the Chagos Marine Reserve in the Indian Ocean, designated in 2010, the United Kingdom has created two of the largest fully protected marine areas, totalling 1,470,000 square kilometres (567,017 square miles). Through these actions, the British government—caretaker of the fifth-greatest amount of marine habitat of any country in the world—has established its place as a global leader in ocean conservation. Pitcairn Islands Marine Reserve Traditional and cultural non-commercial fishing by the Pitcairn islanders and their visitors is permitted within 2 nautical miles of the summit of 40 Mile Reef and in a transit zone between Pitcairn and 40 Mile Reef. © 2017 The Pew Trusts Encompassing 99 per cent of Pitcairn’s exclusive economic zone, the Pitcairn Islands Marine Reserve is about 3½ times the size of the land area of the United Kingdom.
    [Show full text]
  • Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT) (October 2011)
    Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT) (October 2011) Caption: European Commission President José Manuel Barroso delivers his State of the Union speech pleading for the launch of a wide-ranging public debate for a major transformation of the European Union into a ‘federation of nation states’. Source: European Commission. Region level evaluation. Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT). Final Report. Volume II: Annexes, October 2011. 271 p. Copyright: European Union URL: http://www.cvce.eu/obj/overseas_countries_and_territories_oct_october_2011-en-6f7c0eed-6572-4c47-83da- 05d2ce024c45.html Publication date: 05/12/2013 1 / 272 05/12/2013 REGION LEVEL EVALUATION OVERSEAS COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES (OCT) Final Report Volume II: Annexes October 2011 Evaluation carried out on behalf of the Commission of the European Union 2 / 272 05/12/2013 3 / 272 05/12/2013 Consortium composed by ECO Consult, AGEG, APRI, Euronet, IRAM, NCG Leader of the Consortium: ECO Consult, Contact Person: Dietrich BUSACKER [email protected] Contract No EVA 2007/geo-acp This evaluation is mandated by The Joint Evaluation Unit for: EuropeAid Directorate General for Development and Directorate-General External Relations The opinions expressed in this document represent the views of the authors, which are not necessarily shared by the Commission of the European Union or by the authorities of the countries concerned The evaluation team was composed of: Mr. Gunnar Olesen (Team Leader), Mr. Max Hennion, Mr. Mark Q. Watson, Mr. Dolf Noppen, Mr. Seán J. Burke, Ms. Jutta Keilbach and Ms. Anne Beutling. 4 / 272 05/12/2013 5 / 272 05/12/2013 EVA 2007/geo-acp: Evaluation of the Commission of the EU’s cooperation with Overseas Countries and Territories ECO Consult – AGEG – APRI – Euronet – IRAM – NCG Table of Contents Page Annex I: Terms of Reference..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]