Viscount Haldane:- We think under the circumstances it is right that there should be leave to appeal. This Board, as we have often said, is not a Court of Criminal Appeal, but there is a class of cases which is generally defined as the class of cases which falls within the category of what the Board laid down in Dillet., In re (1) in which they do advise the Sovereign to interfere where there has been a miscarriage of justice referred for its meaning to the fundamental principles of justice, for instance, if there has been anything coram non judice,' that is a case in point. If the argument that has been addressed to us here is right, the case has been coram non judice. There is one point, at any rate, on which we think that there is a serious point to argue, without expressing any opinion upon it, and that is that the second Ordinance has not extended the scope of the first Ordinance, and that the first Ordinance is limited to cases where the defendant is taken in flagrante delicto. There are other points besides that; there is the question of whether this could have retrospective action; that is quite another point. Then there is the question as to allegiance, to which reference has been made. I do not say whether we should have given leave to appeal on these points as regards the allegiance; I think we should have been reluctant to do so; but it must be open to the appellants when they come here to argue these points. We do not express any opinion except that we think that within the principles of Dillet's case. [1887] 12 A.C. 459 = 56 L.T. 615 = 16 Cox. C.C. 241 = 36 W. R. 81. We are bound to advise the Sovereign that there should be a scrutiny of what has happened with a view to ascertaining whether there has been a miscarriage of fundamental principles of justice. Leave granted. .