on the first day of the trial. Furthermore, he claims that witnesses against him were not thoroughly cross-examined. Two witnesses were called on his behalf. They were not however, eyewitnesses, and in the author's opinion were not given the opportunity to testify under the same conditions as the witnesses against him. This was because the prosecutor allegedly ridiculed and intimidated the defence witnesses, thereby producing an incoherent testimony which undermined the credibility of the witnesses in the eyes of the jury. 3.3 The author contends that the absence of a written judgement of the Court of Appeal of Jamaica constitutes a violation of his constitutional rights, and resulted in the dismissal of his petition for special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee. In this way, he claims, he was denied a fair review of his case, in violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant. 3.4 It is submitted that the Court of Appeal was under a duty to provide the written reasons for its decision of 28 January 1986, especially since the Court's reasoned judgement was necessary in order to pursue a further appeal, and that failure to provide written reasons would frustrate a prospective appellant's right to exercise his right of appeal. According to counsel, there is ample support, in British and Commonwealth jurisprudence/ a/ for the proposition that there is a judicial duty to give reasons for a decision, the rationale being that written reasons afford an insight into the legal or factual bases for the judgement and afford the complainant the opportunity to exercise any available right ofappeal in a timely and informed manner. 3.5 Counsel further submits that the failure of the Judicial Committee to direct the Court of Appeal to produce a written judgement and to admit his petition left Mr. Henry with no available remedy and amounted to a denial of his right of appeal against conviction and sentence, in violation of article 14, paragraph 5. By failing to exercise the powers conferred upon it by the Judicial Committee Act, the Privy Council is said to have "abdicated" its supervisory jurisdiction, conferred by Section 110, paragraph 3, of the Jamaican Constitution, to ensure that the decisions of the lower courts were not deficient. 3.6 In counsel's opinion, a recent decision of the House of Lords &/ underscores the importance of! the supervisory function of courts. In this judgement it was stated that the courts are entitled, within limits, "... to subject an administrative decision to a more rigorous examination, to ensure that it is in no way flawed, according to the gravity of the issue which the decision determines. ... When an administrative decision under challenge is said to be one which may put the applicant's life at risk, the basis of the decision under challenge must surely call for the most anxious scrutiny." Although this reasoning was applied in the context of an administrative decision, counsel submits that it is applicable to the author's case. The "special responsibility" rests with the Judicial Committee in view of the very real threat of execution facing the author; in counsel's opinion, the Judicial Committee did not exercise the "anxious scrutiny" required by the particular circumstances of the author's case. -212-