proceedings.
==
From sub-sections 4(2) and 4(3),above quoted, it is
manifest that a full judicial enquiry, in the way
in
18
which the Chief Justice would appear to desire it
(See Sir J.Kemp's draft ordce attached to encl .5 sections
5,6,and7.) has not been provided for; but in not
providing for such a full enquiry the Governor (seepara
having due regard
ewing to the peculiar nature
4 of encl.3.) says:
of many deportation
cases the examination
before a
judge provided for in sections 4(2) and(3) will preserve
the principles of judicial pro ce dure as far as is practic-
able."
su. Istati
The Governor,by the above despatch, has been given
the choice of two suggestions: (a) A full judicial
enquiry with the right of the judge to determine whether
the accused should be deported or not and (b) A judicial
report following a full judicial enquiry into the
allegations made.
9
Subsections 4(2) and 4(3)
neither suggest ion; and tend to place the
4(3) adopt
judge
in the position of a mere onlooker. It is quite possible
that in practice the judicial report provided for
might be tantamount to a recommendation; but such
recommendation should in my opinion be expressly provided for.
Again, if a judge is asked for his opinion as to whether
or not certain allegations are well founded in fact, he
should be allowed the right of a judicial enquiry with
full control of the proceedings.
ordinance or bill, which
I have examined Sir J.Kemp's
tends to follow the lines of the first suggestion, and
find it preferable, having regard to the above objections,
to the ordinance at present in force No.25 of 1917. as
amended by No.7 of 1931. Accordingly I suggest that
Sir J.Kemp's bill be referred to the Attorney General
for revision with a view to adoption.
J. R. Grant
AG.
Vinsen
/6/11/31.