We remain opposed in principle to this clause. Although the prosecution would first have to show that the accused had been maintaining a high standard of living, or possessed or had possessed property disproportionate to his official emoluments, the accused could then be convicted if he remained silent even though there was
no evidence of his having committed any offence. It continues to be our view that possession of unexplained property should not be made a criminal offence but should be dealt with under disciplinary
regulations.
i
A further objection is that the clause does not state what tests the court is to apply in deciding whether an explanation is satisfactory. If it means "consistent with innocence, and not shown to be untrue", the court will ask, innocence of what criminal offence? If the burden of proof is to be cast on the defendent he is entitled to know what he must prove to secure acquittal. For instance, if the accused established that he had been able to live at a standard above
that which is commensurate with his official emoluments because of his gains from gambling, or because he had borrowed money, would this be a satisfactory explanation? Or if he had obtained the money by illegal means, is it right that in order to defend himself of a charge under the proposed Clause 10, he is forced to admit commission of some other offence?
The present marginal note should in any case (it is considered) read: "Unexplained possession of resources."
Clause 13
Having regard to the definition of a public servant in Clause 2, Clause 13 means that an employee of one of the corporations named ! in the Schedule might be given special powers of investigation. This was not intended?
Clause 14
We maintain that this clause breaches a fundamental principle of the British judicial system - in that it may be used to compel a person whose activities are under investigation to make an incriminating statement during the investigation and before charges
are even contemplated. This is to be found in the French investigatory procedure, but is a fundamental departure from British principles.
/ Sub-clause (1) (a)