I agree with Rob's comment that it is very strange for any member of the
JCPC to understand their job as being to try to figure out what the courts
of Guernsey would have thought the law is, rather than directly deciding on
what the law of Guernsey is (or was, as the case may be).

Josh said
> On a minor point of precedent - if the strong tradition in Privy Council
> judgments is for a single-speech expressing the majority view, then what is
> the status of the Auld and Mance add-ons?

I suppose one reads them as one would concurring judgments in any supreme
appellate court, to extract as one can the majority holding. There is this
odd wrinkle that Rob identified:

> It is certainly odd that Lord Clarke writes that his advice is that "of
> the board", but the other two in the majority whilst agreeing with him
> don't make any reference to this.

But Lord Mance starts with "I concur in the advice of the Board given by
Lord Clarke." Sir Robin Auld for his part agrees with both of the other two
judgments ... which presumably includes their treating Lord Clarke's advice
as that of the Board? But it is not clear what this means when there is more
than one majority judgment ... perhaps it is no more than an expressed
consensus that the Clarke judgment is the leading one. On a more significant
point of precedent: Rob said

> I agree that the law of Guernsey is not necessarily the same as England,
> but the majority, for good or ill, determine that in this case that it is
> and then go on to determine what English law is.

Paradoxically of course, this Guernsey decision cannot decide anything about
English law as a matter of binding precedent. So Josh, you can still hold
out hope that Armitage will fall...

L