GOVERNOR Sir Edwin Leather was reluctant to "open Pandora's box" by reconvening inquests into the five murders Erskine Durrant (Buck) Burrows was suspected of participating in once the former Police Headquarters janitor was jailed for 25 years on separate armed robbery charges.Burrows was out of circulation following his October, 1973 arrest and January, 1974 Supreme Court confessions to robbing the Bank of Bermuda on Church Street and the Piggly Wiggly's Shelly Bay branch.

And with Burrows behind bars, Sir Edwin — who had ultimate responsibility for the island's internal security — seemed inclined to allow justice to be postponed if not left entirely undone in the 1972/3 assassinations of Police Commissioner George Duckett and Governor Sir Richard Sharples and the murders of Government House Aide-De-Camp Captain Hugh Sayers and supermarket executives Victor Rego and Mark Doe.

Burrows' suspected associate in the Government House and Supermarket killings, Larry Winfield Tacklyn, had also been jailed — for a 15-year term — following robbery convictions.

Recently declassified FCO documents suggest Government House believed with the triggermen in Casemates and the hard-core Black Beret Cadre militants who orchestrated the crimes scattered, reconvening inquests into the killings and then possibly charging the suspected murderers might "run counter to the public interest".

But intense pressure from legal advisers, his own Deputy Governor, Bermudian Cabinet Ministers and Police Commissioner L.M. (Nobby) Clark convinced a reluctant Sir Edwin that the rule of law had to be upheld.

At a meeting of the Governor's Council on April 3, 1975 there was "unanimous agreement amongst members of the Council (Cabinet Ministers), the Attorney General (Gerald Collett), the Commissioner of Police and yourself that, in their opinion, I should lift the inhibition on the inquest into the murder of Police Commissioner Duckett in the public interest, and without prejudice to any decisions subsequently required to be taken relating to other inquests presently adjourned sine die" Sir Edwin said in a memorandum to Deputy Governor Peter Lloyd dated May 20, 1975.

The Duckett inquest had been opened and quickly adjourned on an order from Government House under Section 7 of the Coroner's Act ("The Governor may exonerate or inhibit any Coroner from holding any particular inquest") shortly after the Police Commissioner's murder on September 9, 1972.

Subsequent inquests into the Government House and Shopping Centre murders were also adjourned on instructions from Government House because Police investigations were ongoing and might have been prejudiced had the inquests been held concurrently.

"At the time I reserved my decision and informed Council that I also felt it desirable, both for constitutional and courtesy reasons, to inform the FCO of the position reached and enquire whether there was any further advice they wished to proffer," said Sir Edwin following the April meeting of the Governor's Council.

"I subsequently wrote to Sir Duncan Watson (at the FCO) setting out the position in great detail and have now received a reply . . . in which they have no further suggestions to offer, and are agreeable that I act in accordance with the Coroner's Act and 'in accordance with the advice of Ministers'." (emphasis in the original).

Sir Edwin was attempting to ensure he had a fallback position in place so responsibility could be shared with Bermudian authorities in the event any decision prompted civil unrest: The FCO later clarified its position in a withering telegram to the Governor, pointing out that while support for his decision from Bermudian politicians was certainly welcome, the decision to reopen the Duckett inquest was his — and his alone — to make.

"That's just so typical of Ted Leather," says a former Bermuda Cabinet Minister who sat on the Governor's Council at the time. "He wasn't just a Tight Assed Canadian but a Cover Your Ass Canadian — he wanted to be able to divert the blame if anything went wrong and hog all of the glory if things went off smoothly. I'd forgotten what a moral coward he could be.

"Bottom line is this: it was his sworn responsibility to ensure the rule of law was upheld and he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing his duty. Responsibility for lifting the inhibitions on the murder inquests lay solely with Government House in constitutional terms.

"But he would have been quite happy to allow sleeping dogs to lie with Burrows and Tacklyn both in jail for other offences.

"Leather never really grasped the concept that to do anything other than reconvene the inquests — and then move to trial if the evidence was sufficient to warrant murder indictments — would have been to allow the perpetrators of the '72/'73 killings to quite literally get away with murder.

"And what sort of message would that have sent to Bermuda's criminal community? If you can kill the Governor and the Police Commissioner and escape justice, then absolutely anyone is fair game."

Indeed, Sir Edwin appears to have been fully aware his constitutional position precluded the need for Ministerial backing when it came to reopening the murder inquests.

A November, 1974 memorandum from Chief Justice Sir John Summerfield to Government House said Bermudian law "confers unfettered discretion on the Governor without any limitation . . ." when it came to either imposing or revoking inhibitions on an inquest.

And in an internal Government House memorandum dated May 21, 1975 it is reported: "The Attorney General has confirmed his earlier opinion that the Governor is not bound by Ministerial advice in this instance . . . I should perhaps add that the Premier (Sir Edward Richards) always appears to have shared this view: last autumn he told the Governor quite firmly that he did not expect to even be consulted about the matter" (of reopening the murder inquests)."

The Bermuda Government's increasing dissatisfaction with Sir Edwin's handling of internal security matters led it to approach the FCO in June, 1975 requesting certain responsibilities for the Police Service be transferred from Government House to the Cabinet Office. "The (Bermudians) made no secret of the fact that their attitude has been conditioned to a considerable extent by the personality of the present Governor, who has embarrassed them on a number of occasions by enthusiastic but unwise actions in police matters," reads an FCO record of the meeting.

And Sir Edwin's haphazard grasp of his constitutional remit as Governor also irritated the FCO, who privately complained his approval in early 1975 of "some new air licensing regulations (to our dismay and embarrassment)" had exceeded his reserve powers for external affairs, prompting extensive — and wholly avoidable — corrective work in London.

An internal FCO document assessing Sir Edwin's performance compiled in November, 1975 concluded "the Governor was not highly respected. He was brash by nature. His public behaviour was often injudicious and he made frequent faux pas. In private he spoke far too freely. People (black and white) were not very well impressed by such gestures as kissing black ladies and they looked askance at his interest in acquiring Bermuda status and directorships of off-shore companies." A CONFIDENTIAL 1975 FCO memorandum on the murder inquests chronicles Sir Edwin's growing unhappiness with his legal and constitutional obligations as they pertained to reconvening the Duckett inquest: "Acting on the advice of the Attorney General, the Commissioner of Police and Ministers, but against his own inclinations, the Governor agreed in May of this year to lift the inhibition on the inquest into Mr. Duckett's death."He had been apprehensive that such action would be against the public interest, opening a 'Pandora's box' at a time when the security situation in Bermuda had returned to one of calm. In any case, the Police were convinced those responsible for all five deaths were already in jail on other charges.

"After completion of the (murder) enquiries (in October 1974 — a year after Burrows' arrest), the Police were convinced that they knew who was responsible for the murders but the available evidence would not have stood up in court and the Attorney General decided nobody should be charged at that stage.

"On October 30 (1974), the Attorney General informed the Deputy Governor that his view and those of the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police the inquests should now be reopened and that the one concerning Commissioner Duckett should be taken first.

"The Governor consulted the Chief Justice (Sir John Summerfield), who expressed the view that Sir Edwin had 'unfettered discretion' to reopen the inquest — but advised against it on the grounds it might not be in the public interest. This is not a view shared by the Attorney General and the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police, who say the risk of further crimes and disorders resulting from such a move is not great."

Sir John Summerfield sent a detailed — and exceedingly cautious — opinion to Sir Edwin on November 6, 1974 concerning his legal and constitutional responsibilities as Governor, one suggesting the political risks attendant on reopening the Duckett inquest outweighed any possible gains.

". . . There is no executive power to inhibit an inquest indefinitely," he said. "The object of the inquest is to expose to the public an inquiry into any unnatural death, its causes, and with certain exceptions, the persons responsible. Prima facie, therefore, the public interest is best served by letting the law take its course.

"There should be compelling reasons for arresting the normal process. In the case of (the '72/'73 murders) the inquests were stayed on the grounds that the proceedings (and possibly the attendant world-wide publicity and likely distortions consequent thereupon) would handicap Police investigations and, perhaps, prejudice the outcome.

"The Police investigations are now complete in the sense that no further headway is foreseeable for the time being. In their present state the results of those investigations do not warrant criminal proceedings against any person.

"One of the main purposes for inhibiting the inquest — perhaps the only one considered at the time when the decision was taken — no longer obtains. And so the question arises whether any sound reason presently exists whether taken into account when the original decision was made or not — justifying the continuation of the inhibition . . .

". . . The public knows that there has been an intensive investigation by Police and that the results of those investigations do not, as yet, justify a prosecution, otherwise one would have been instituted. An inquest would cast suspicion on certain suspects, but no more. Is the public interest best served by such a consequence where no criminal proceedings are instituted against anyone?

" . . . If the inhibition is withdrawn and the inquests proceed on correct lines, it would appear that the end result would be to establish that (the victims) were murdered; and to point the finger of suspicion impotently at certain persons.

"In some communities such an outcome might be perfectly satisfactory. To a certain extent, it may be so here. But the indications are that these murders were aimed at symbols of colonialism — have a political base. This is an assumption on my part, of course, because obviously I have not read the files. But I would be surprised if I am wrong. If I am right an important factor must be taken into account.

"It is unpalatable but unfortunately true that among a certain section of the community which is, perhaps, larger than we would like it to be, the end result would fail to have the effect envisaged but would result in certain suspects being elevated to the status of heroes against whom the law appears powerless. Such 'heroes' are apt to attract imitators.

"It is the combination of these factors that leads me to the view that the time may not yet be ripe for invoking the inhibition. I can see no reason for haste."

But Attorney General Collett had summarised the polar-opposite position of his office and the Police Force in a letter sent to Government House on October 30, 1974 — one which implored the Governor to lift the inhibition on the Duckett inquest as soon as was feasible .

"A series of discussions has been with the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent (George) Hammond," he said. "The united view of these Police officers and myself is that there would be considerable public advantage in reopening these inquests. The police investigation into the circumstances of all the deaths is virtually complete, and it is considered now to be unlikely that further investigation will bring further substantial evidence to light.

"The available evidence does not justify the institution of criminal proceedings at the present time since, in my considered opinion, it is unlikely that any Supreme Court jury could be induced to convict on the basis of that evidence.

"In these circumstances, reopening of the inquests would have the advantages that:

"[bul] The known facts would be laid before the public.

"[bul] The substantial progress made by the Police investigators in solving the crimes would be demonstrated.

"[bul] Rumours and misconceptions in Bermuda would be corrected.

"[bul] The strength of the evidence and, in particular, the willingness of key witnesses to testify publicly would be tested.

"[bul] The likelihood of the link between the crimes might become apparent.

"[bul] The possibility of further evidence, at present withheld, being disclosed as a result of the publicity could not be ruled out.

The possibility of public order repercussions from reopening these inquests needs careful consideration but the views of these Police officers and myself is that the risk of further crimes and disorders is not great, although it cannot be ruled out."

After the April 1975 Governor's Council meeting Sir Edwin sent an eight-page memorandum to the FCO's on April 16, 1975 detailing the logically inconsistent and legally dubious reasons for his reluctance to reopen the Duckett inquest — and also spelling out his bald intent to associate Cabinet Ministers with any move he made to recall the Coroner's Court.

Sir Edwin's letter was interpreted by the FCO as a thinly disguised plea for the British Foreign Secretary to intervene on his behalf and ensure responsibility for reconvening the inquest was shared by Government House and the Bermuda Government.

"The Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General agree in their advice to me that the inhibition of the inquest on Commissioner Duckett should be lifted," he said. "The apparent difference in the advice given me by the Attorney General and the Chief Justice can be explained by the fact the Chief Justice has not, indeed legally could not, have seen the case files and is therefore unaware that the evidence in the Duckett case is far stronger than in the other two — a fact which has impressed the Attorney General and subsequently found weight with members of Governor's Council. The Chief Justice agrees this explanation is likely.

"The crux of the problem lies in the fact that the (Coroner's Act) requires that the decision be taken by the Governor, seeking only the advice of the Chief Justice. He has advised that . . . the decision must rest not on law, but on an assessment of 'the public interest'.

"Up to this moment I have most scrupulously refrained from giving any indication of my own view, have in my own mind remained determined not to pre-judge the issue before having had the fullest possible advice and ample time for second, third and fourth thoughts; and have fully maintained the sole responsibility of my office to take this decision.

"It has, however, been clear to me . . . that the Chief Justice's opinion relating to the 'public interest' makes my decision inevitably and unavoidably a matter of political judgement: what is the 'public interest'? For this reason, whatever the Constitution and the law may or may not say, I have determined it is my duty to ensure Cabinet Ministers should be associated with me in my decision, and should be seen and understood by all concerned to be associated.

"In the event, as the minutes of the Governor's Council of 3rd April show, all members of Governor's Council, my Deputy Governor, the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Police, after many weeks of thought, and some two hours of careful discussion, were unanimous in giving it as their opinions that it is my duty to lift the inhibition into the murder of Commissioner Duckett . . . I am bound to say that I am not myself so entirely sanguine as Ministers that opening the Pandora's box to let out just one case may not lead to pressures which could cause trouble later on: however, as this is a question solely of political judgement, I do not consider it would be wise to act contrary to the unanimous opinion of Ministers."

Sir Edwin said he had reluctantly agreed to set the necessary legal steps in motion that would reopen the Duckett inquest.

The Governor received a prompt and terse response to his letter from British Foreign Secretary James Callaghan. There was no problem as far as the future Labour Party Prime Minister was concerned.

While sympathising about the possibility of "opening Pandora's box" by lifting the inhibition on the Duckett inquest, Callaghan told the Governor "you must act under the Coroner's Act in accordance with the advice of your Ministers".

Sir Edwin seized on the reference to "the advice of your Ministers", believing he could publicly associate the Bermuda Government with responsibility for the inquest's reopening — and so be better positioned to apportion blame if public disorder ensued.

When Sir Edwin contacted the FCO for further clarification on whether Bermuda Cabinet Ministers could be directly associated with his decision to reopen the Duckett inquest, he was brusquely told while support from local politicians for his decision was welcome the decision was his alone to make under the law.

An internal FCO memorandum on the matter says: "This is a matter in which . . . the Secretary of State (for Foreign Affairs) need not be consulted although I suppose there is no reason why the Governor should not inform the Secretary of State beforehand about what action is proposed. I do not think the Secretary of State should be advised to intervene."

The Duckett inquest was reconvened at Magistrates' Court in June, 1975.

Continued next week

Governor was reluctant to open Pandora’s box