The King of Jamaica and the Judicial Committee

David Torrance

King Charles, who is head of state of the United Kingdom as well as 14 other Commonwealth Realms (including Jamaica), has a statutory power to refer certain legal questions to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for an advisory opinion.

This briefing looks at section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833 as well as previous references made under that act.

What is the King’s power?

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the final court of appeal for some Commonwealth Realms (independent states where the King is also head of state), the UK’s Overseas Territories, the three Crown Dependencies and the UK in certain domestic matters. The Judicial Committee is co-located with the UK Supreme Court in London’s Parliament Square.

Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833 (which established the Judicial Committee) provides that:

It shall be lawful for His Majesty to refer to the said Judicial Committee for hearing or consideration any such other matters whatsoever as His Majesty shall think fit; and such Committee shall thereupon hear or consider the same, and shall advise His Majesty thereon in manner aforesaid.

Although this power is vested in “His Majesty”, by convention the King will only refer a matter to the Judicial Committee if advised to by the relevant ministers. The King has no personal discretion.

In 2012 the Judicial Committee said its role was:

to tender advice which it considers to be correct as a matter of law, and which, on the facts before it, is appropriate. This remains so irrespective of the manner in which [His] Majesty refers a petition, or specifically refers the issues in a petition, to the Judicial Committee.

If a matter referred under section 4 is accepted, then the Judicial Committee provides an advisory opinion to the Monarch. This is not binding in the manner of a legal judgment, although it has been customary for the Crown to act in accordance with the advice received. The Judicial Committee can, in principle, advise the King that it is “inappropriate to provide substantive answers” to an issue or issues referred “if it considered that that is the right course to take”.

Most members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are Justices of the UK Supreme Court, although senior appeal judges from the UK’s three jurisdictions (England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) as well as Privy Counsellors who are (or have been) UK appeal judges can also sit. Judges of certain superior courts in Commonwealth Realms have been appointed Privy Counsellors for the purpose of sitting on the Judicial Committee.

Who can ask the King to refer a matter to the Judicial Committee?

In practice, a UK Minister of the Crown, Commonwealth Realm government minister, Overseas Territory Governor or Chief Justice petitions the King asking that a reference be made.

Initially, this power was confined to the Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (later Northern Ireland), as “the Crown” was considered “indivisible” until the Statute of Westminster 1931. This meant there was only one Monarch whose legal authority applied across the then British Empire.

Contemporary constitutional practice now treats the Monarch as “divisible” across 15 Commonwealth Realms (including the UK). Some of these retain the Judicial Committee as their final court of appeal. It follows that government ministers in certain realms can also advise the king of those realms to refer certain questions to the Judicial Committee under the 1833 Act.

When the Dominion of Ceylon (later Sri Lanka) considered petitioning the Judicial Committee in 1955, the then Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Kilmuir, was clear that:

it is for the Ministers of the Dominion concerned to decide whether a matter ought to be submitted to the [Judicial Committee of the] Privy Council, and that it is not open to the United Kingdom Government, or any of its Ministers, to tender advice to the Sovereign in relation to that matter.

For example, the Judicial Committee Act 1833 is Jamaican law by virtue of section 4 of the Jamaica (Constitution) Order in Council 1962, which provides that all laws enforced in Jamaica before it became independent were to remain.

What can be referred?

Although the power is very broad – “any such other matters whatsoever as His Majesty shall think fit” – in practice references have been limited to those of constitutional importance.

In 1967, Richard Crossman, the then Lord President of the Council, told MPs:

The practice is to advise Her Majesty to refer to the Judicial Committee under this Section only cases of constitutional importance in which an advisory opinion is required by the Government or this House on a point which cannot be effectively decided in the ordinary courts.

Similarly, in 1971 Lord Hailsham, the then Lord Chancellor, told the House of Lords that the section 4 reference was “a convenient method of ascertaining the law when no other jurisdiction is available”.

The Judicial Committee itself concurred in 2012, observing that section 4 of the 1833 Act is:

not intended to provide a mechanism for bringing any issues before the Judicial Committee which a petitioner wants determined by the Committee: it is intended to be limited to issues which cannot be determined through the ordinary judicial process.

The lawyer Alex Peplow has called the section 4 reference a “last resort” jurisdiction.

As a result, references under section 4 of the 1833 Act are rare. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the Judicial Committee has only provided 13 such opinions.

Commonwealth Realms and Overseas Territories

The constitutions of some Commonwealth Realms and Overseas Territories provide for references to the Judicial Committee under section 4 in certain circumstances. For example, section 100 of the Jamaican Constitution provides that:

A Judge of the Supreme Court shall be removed from office by the Governor-General by instrument under the Broad Seal if the question of the removal of that Judge from office has, at the request of the Governor-General […] been referred by Her Majesty to the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty’s Privy Council under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833 […] and the Judicial Committee has advised Her Majesty that the Judge ought to be removed from office for inability as aforesaid or for misbehaviour.

In 2009 the Judicial Committee considered (under section 64 of the Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006) whether the Hon Mr Justice Schofield, the then Chief Justice of Gibraltar, should be removed from office “by reason of inability to discharge the functions of his office or for misbehaviour” (Re Chief Justice of Gibraltar [2009] UKPC 43).

Peerage claims

Section 3 of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2026 abolished the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in relation to hereditary peerage claims. The bill’s explanatory notes stated that the “intention” was for any “complex or disputed” peerage claims instead to be referred to the Judicial Committee under section 4 of the 1833 act.

Procedure

When a petition is referred by another Commonwealth Realm under section 4 of the 1833 act it appears the Monarch’s Private Secretary writes to the petitioners (including legal representatives who have signed the petition) informing them that the Monarch “has agreed that this petition should be referred to the Judicial Committee”. The President of the Supreme Court is also informed.

The procedural framework for section 4 references can be found in Part 11 (Rules 59 to 62) of the Judicial Committee (Appellate Jurisdiction) Rules 2024.

Rule 60 provides that the person “at whose request the reference was made” (“the applicant”) must within 21 days provide the Registrar of the Judicial Committee with the name and address of any person affected by the reference (“the respondent”) as well as details of the applicant’s and (if known) the respondent’s legal representatives.

Under Rule 61, the applicant must file an index of relevant documents at least eight weeks before a hearing, after which the applicant and every respondent “must” then file their respective written cases.

The procedure is different if the UK government petitions the Judicial Committee. Precedents suggest that a UK Minister of the Crown writes to the Lord President of the Council explaining the basis of a petition and requesting that an Order in Council refer the matter to the Judicial Committee.

Earlier examples of section 4 references

Officers of the Crown

Following the death of King Edward VII in 1910, it was unclear whether Privy Counsellors, judges and other judicial officers who had taken the Oath of Allegiance, Privy Council Oath and Judicial Oath during the previous reign were required by law to do so again.

On 19 July 1910, King Edward VII’s successor, King George V referred three questions to the Judicial Committee under section 4 of the 1833 Act. The Judicial Committee reported to the King that “officials should not have to swear their oaths again”.

Anglo-Irish Treaty, 1921

The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, under which the Irish Free State (later the Republic of Ireland) became a Dominion within the then British Empire, gave rise to two section 4 references.

Irish Boundary Commission

Following the Parliament of Northern Ireland’s decision to remain a devolved part of the United Kingdom in December 1922, an Irish Boundary Commission was to be formed to determine the precise boundary between the two parts of Ireland. When the Government of Northern Ireland refused to nominate its commissioner, the UK Government asked the Judicial Committee “whether there is any constitutional method of bringing the Commission into existence so long as the Ministers of Northern Ireland maintain their refusal”. In July 1924 the Judicial Committee answered “no”. The UK and Irish governments legislated to amend the treaty.

Compensation

In 1928 there was a further reference regarding compensation payable to former Irish public servants under Article 10 of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. A reference made on 25 June 1928 asked for the Judicial Committee’s advice on what constituted “fair compensation”. It reported in November 1928 that a previous judgment that certain civil servants should receive greater compensation was correct.

Australian seabed

In 1972 there was a dispute between the federal Australian government and the States of Queensland and Tasmania regarding ownership of the seabed adjacent to those States. These States attempted to petition Queen Elizabeth II to refer the matter to the Judicial Committee, but at this time UK Ministers of the Crown were responsible for advising the Monarch on Australian State matters (this ceased with the Australia Act 1986).

The UK government took the position that section 4 was “a power vested in Her Majesty in the right of the United Kingdom and not in Her Majesty in some other capacity” but acknowledged that federal Australian ministers also had an “interest” so could advise the Queen of Australia in this respect. Ultimately, both the UK Foreign Secretary and Australian Prime Minister advised the Queen not to refer the petitions to the Judicial Committee.

Jamaica

On 7 September 2026 the Jamaican culture minister Olivia Grange “lodged” a petition during a visit to London. Using the section 4 reference, the Government of Jamaica wants King Charles III (as King of Jamaica) to refer this petition to the Judicial Committee. It asks for:

A determination as to whether Transatlantic Chattel Slavery, as practised in Jamaica, was in fact ever lawful under English law, or whether it was offensive to the fundamental principles of the common law and indeed to certain express statutory provisions of the Westminster Parliament
A further determination as to whether the said forced transportation and chattel enslavement was a breach of relevant international obligations. These obligations include those arising out of general principles of law, the peremptory prohibitions of slavery, torture, racial discrimination and crimes against humanity and obligations derived from other sources of international law; and
Finally, His Majesty is respectfully invited to refer the issue of whether there is a legal obligation on the part of the United Kingdom to provide a reparatory remedy to the people of Jamaica, as descendants of those subject to these dehumanising practices, and as a community of persons on whom the practices have had indelible, and continuing, negative effect

Ms Grange said in a statement the petition had been “smoothly and successfully” submitted to the King. She said the Government of Jamaica had acted “through the Governor General” of Jamaica and that Buckingham Palace had provided “guidance on how to file the petition”. Although this did not include physically presenting the petition to the King, a courtesy call was sought. Ms Grange told the Parliament of Jamaica on 22 September that the petition had been referred by the King to the Judicial Committee.

The petition is signed by the Attorney General of Jamaica, Ms Grange and the chair of Jamaica’s National Council on Reparation.

The Government of Jamaica first announced its intention to petition the King in June 2025. The following month Andrew Holness, the Prime Minister of Jamaica, said he had secured “broad support” from the Caribbean Community (Caricom) for the move, which has a long-standing campaign for reparatory justice.

Mr Holness said that if the petition was successful, then the UK would bear “a legal obligation to provide reparations to Jamaica and its people for the enduring harm caused” by enslavement. However, in 2026 Ms Grange said the “petition does not include a monetary claim” but sought “some appropriate remedy or remedies for the atrocity of chattel enslavement which our ancestors endured”.

On 8 September 2026 Andy Burnham’s official spokesperson said the UK government’s position on reparations was “clear”:

The UK does not and will not pay reparations. The transatlantic slave trade was abhorrent, and of course it’s right that we acknowledge the wrongs of the past. But we continue to face forward and work with other countries on current shared challenges.

Although currently a Commonwealth Realm, in 2023 Jamaica established a Constitutional Reform Committee to help ensure “Jamaica’s smooth transition to a Republic”. A bill was introduced to the Parliament of Jamaica the following year but has yet to become law. Under this legislation, Jamaica would retain appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.