attorney who replaced his previous counsel was totally unprepared for the task. Still in the context of the appeal, the author indicates that he has experienced great difficulties in obtaining the court documents in his case; he states that by letter dated 3 September 1987 from the Registrar of the Court of Appeal, he was informed that the Court of Appeal had delivered only an oral judgement in the case. 2.4 The London law firm which represented the author before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council observes that his petition was dismissed because of the absence of a written judgement from the Court of Appeal. In this context, it is indicated that three other Jamaican capital cases were heard and dismissed by the Judicial Committee in January 1987, all of which raised the issue of the absence of a written judgement of the Court of Appeal. In this context, counsel explains that the dismissal of the author's petition was due to his failure to meet the Judicial Committee's rules of procedure, namely, to explain the grounds on which he was seeking special leave to appeal, and to provide the Judicial Committee with copies of the decisions of the lower courts. Counsel refers, in particular, to Sections 3(1)(b) and 4(a) of the Judicial Committee (General Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules Order (1982 Statutory Instrument No. 1676). 2.5 Counsel recalls that before the Judicial Committee the author's representative requested the members of the Judicial Committee to (a) allow the petition on the ground that the failure of the Court of Appeal to provide a written judgement in a capital case was such a violation of the principles of natural justice that leave to appeal should be granted and (b) remit the case to Jamaica with a direction, under section 10 of the Judicial Committee Act of 1844, that the Court of Appeal be required to provide written reasons. 2.6 At the time, counsel advised that a constitutional motion should be filed in the Supreme Court of Jamaica. Counsel indicates that she has been exploring the possibility of filing a constitutional motion on the author's behalf; in mid-1989, the author's file was transmitted to a new counsel in London, who subsequently confirmed that, in spite of all her efforts to this effect, no Jamaican lawyer agreed to represent the author, on a no-fee basis, in any constitutional motion which it may be possible to bring before the Supreme (Constitutional} Court. Complaint 3.1 The author claims that he was denied a fair trial and, in particular, that the preliminary investigations in the case were biased; thus, the arresting officers allegedly threatened him so as to induce him to confess the crime. It is further submitted that the prosecution witnesses were wholly unreliable, as they could not realistically have witnessed the course of events from the point where they claimed to have been standing. Finally, the trial judge is said to have failed to properly direct the jury on the issue of manslaughter and legitimate self-defence, and the issue of provocation allegedly was not put to the jury. 3.2 The author concedes that he was represented by a legal aid attorney during the trial but submits that the preparation of his defence was totally inadequate, owing to minimal opportunities to consult with his lawyer prior to the trial, I» particular, the author contends that his defence was prepared -211-