*
SECRET
IN GENERAL. IN MY VIEW, WHETHER ONE LIKES IT OR NOT, SECTION 12
MUST BE TAKEN AS MEANING PRECISELY WHAT IT SAYS AND EVIDENCE MAY
BE LED OF UNEXPLAINED RESOURCES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THAT THE
DEFENDANT MUST HAVE BEEN RECEIVING BENEFITS CORRUPTLY AND THERFORE
BE A PERSON DISPOSED TO COMMIT THE CORRUPT ACT ACTUALLY CHARGED.
AS COUNSEL FOR THE CROWN POINTED OUT, THE SECTION IS NOT EXPRESSLY
LIMITED TO CASES OF CORRUPTLY RECEIVING BUT EXTENDS TO ALL OFFENCES
AGAINST THE ORDINANCE. THE EVIDENCE MAY BE QUOTE TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION UNGOTE: IT IS CERTAINLY NOT CONCLUSIVE, IF SOME DIRECT
CONNECTION BETWEEN THE EVIDENCE AND THE CHARGE HAD TO BE SHOWN,
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS SECTION WOULD BE UNNECESSARY: THE EVIDENCE
WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AS TENDING DIRECTLY TO PROVE THE FACT ALLEGED
UNQUOTE.
IN ANY TRIAL OF GODBER IN HONG KONG WE WOULD WISH TO RELY ON
THIS PROVISION, BECAUSE THERE IS EVIDENCE AVAILABLE IN THE FORM OF
BANK DOCUMENTS FOUND IN GODBER'S POSSESSION AND IN NOTES WRITTEN
BY HIM FOUND WITH THE DOCUMENTS INDICATING THAT AT THE END OF MAY
1971 HIS ASSETS TOTALLED APPROXIMATELY POUNDS STERLING 89,500.
OTHER DOCUMENTS IN THE SAME FILE SHOW THAT BY JUNE 1973 THIS
WAS MORE THAN DOUBLE. GODBER'S TOTAL SALARY FROM GOVERNMENT WAS
APPROXIMATELY POUNDS STERLING 45,000. HOWEVER WE ARE NOT YET CERTAIN THAT SECTION 12, WHICH WAS REPEALED WITH THE REST OF THE ORDINANCE, / IS SAVED BY OUR INTERPRETATION ORDINANCE. THERE WAS NO DEFINITE
SAVING IN REPEALING ORDINANCE.
THE OTHER PROBLEM CLEARLY IS THE WORDING OF SECTION 7(5)(A)
OF THE FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACT WHEN IT REFERS TO THE OFFENCE BEING
COMMITTED QUOTE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT UNUQUOTE. WE WOULD, THEREFORE, APPRECIATE ADVICE BY CABLE AS TO WHETHER WE SHOULD INCLUDE IN OUR AFFIDAVITS THIS EVIDENCE OF THE POSSESSION
OF APPARENTLY INEXPLICABLE RESOURCES, BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 12 OR BY NORMAL COMMON LAW RULES.
2. SECRET
/THE PERSON