- 3-
43
corroboration in the case of "evidence" by an accomplice.?
Different judges may take different views of their duties
on such points.
5. The new section 4(3) of the principal
ordinance requires the judge to report whether or not the
allegations in the fourth question are "well founded in
fact". The phrase is an unusual one and I am in doubt
as to its significance. One would rather have expected
the word"proved". Perhaps the phrase is used in order
to avoid, if possible, a suggestion in the word "proved"
that strict legal proof is required.
6. I gather that the Governor in Council will
not be bound by the finding of the judge, so that even if
the judge finds that the allegations are not well founded
in fact, it will still be open to Your Excellency in
Council to take the opposite view and to order the
deportation of the accused. If this is intended it
might perhaps have been advisable to make the matter
clearer. Of course, if it is intended the point only
emphasises the very peculiar nature of the duty placed
upon the judges.
7. I shall be greatly obliged if Your Excellency
will consider the above criticisms of the ordinance.
I have felt it my duty to make them.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your Excellency's most obedient servant,
(sd.) J. H. Kemp.
Chief Justice.
His Excellency,
Sir William Peel, K.C.M.G., K.B.E.,
Governor.