I
2 -
Monday, October 26, 1970
"This does not mean that there is any obligation on the court to
believe the evidence of that other party to the bribe, merely that the
court will have to decide whether or not, in the particular case, such a
witness is worthy of belief, the fact that he might be an accomplice being
disregarded," Mr. Roberts said.
He told the Council clause 23 empowered a court, on his request
as Attorney General, to inform a person who had committed an offence under
the Bill that he would not be prosecuted if he gave "full and true evidence."
It was not uncommon in criminal cases to call a party to the crime
as a witness, rather than to charge him with the offence. As a general
rule, a witness was not compelled to incriminate himself, and in a case
where this seemed likely, judges often expressly informed the witness of this.
Full And Frank Evidence
It was unfortunate that such a warning might well deter the witness
from giving "full and frank evidence," and for this reason the clause
provided for a "specific assurance" to such a witness that he would not be
prosecuted if he gave such evidence which should encourage him to give it.
Mr. Roberts said clause 24 placed upon an accused the burden of
proving the defence of lawful authority or reasonable excuse, and clause 25
presumed that an advantage had been accepted for the reason alleged in the
charge, which the accused could rebut.
He made clear the effect of these two clauses was not, as had been
suggested, to place an accused in the position of having "to prove himself
innocent."
"Before