Defence Act of 1961 or the Poor Persons (Legal Proceedings) Act of 1941, that he does not have the means to himself secure legal representation in Jamaica to argue a constitutional motion on a pro bono basis. 3,13 The author further notes that his allegation that he was denied a fair trial was specifically rejected by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In the circumstances, he should not be required to argue points of law before a court of lower jurisdiction in Jamaica which he had already argued before the Privy Council. The Privy Council/ if seized of ait appeal on a decision on motion pursuant to section 25 of the Constitution, would in all probability confirm its earlier decision. Finally, a court of lesser jurisdiction in Jamaica would be bound by the Judicial Committee's earlier decision. State party's information and observations 4.1 By submission of 20 July 1988, the State party argued that the author retained the right, under section 110 of the Jamaican Constitution, to petition the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for special leave to appeal. It a<£ded that legal aid. would be available to him for that purpose. The author's subsequent petition to the Judicial Committee was dismissed on 21 November 1988. 4.2 In a further submission dated 4 April 1990, made after the Committee's decision on admissibility, the State party contends that although the author's petition for special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was dismissed? he retains the right, under sections 20 and 25 of the Constitution, to apply to the Supreme (Constitutional) Court for redress. A decision of the Supreme Court may be appealed to the Court of Appeal of Jamaica and from there the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. 4.3 As to the author's allegations that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the issue of circumstantial evidence and that witnesses against him allegedly gave false evidence, the State party argues that these claims seek to raise issues of fact and evidence which the Committee has no competence to evaluate. The State party refers to the Committee's jurisprudence in this respect, e/ 4.4 As to the issue of whether a copy of the written judgement of the Court of Appeal was made available to the author or his counsel without delay, the State party notes that "the written judgement would have been available to [the author's] representative at the time it was delivered by the Court of Appeal". Issues and proceedings before the Committee 5.1 During its thirty-fifth session, in March 1989, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee concluded that, after the dismissal of the author's petition for special leave to appeal by the Judicial Committee, there were no further remedies available to the author. 5.2 On 30 March 1989, the Committee declared the communication admissible. -236-