- 2 -
3. In any case, I would still respectfully
48
maintain my objection to the provisions in question,
partly because of the limited character of the duty which
they impose on the judge, as explained in my letter of
the 20th May, 1931, and partly because they make the
judiciary part of the machinery of executive action.
the enquiry were one in which all the witnesses adverse
If
to the accused gave evidence on oath before the judge, and
could be cross-examined, those objections would lose a
good deal of their weight.
4. I still fear that difficulty may arise on
the question of the nature of the evidence. To take a
very practical point, ought the judge to be prepared to
act on the written statement of an unidentified informer
or not?
5. I might perhaps remind Your Excellency that
the courts may at any time be called upon to decide on
the validity of the proceedings in some particular
deportation case, and for this reason alone it seems to
me desirable to avoid, if possible, making the judges
part of the machinery of deportation. It is true that
only one case of this kind has occurred hitherto, i.e.
the case of Li Hong Mi, which went to the Privy Council
and resulted in favour of the deportee (Li Hong Mi v.
Attorney General for Hong Kong, (1920) A.C. 735), but
other cases may occur.
That objection, however, is
only a minor one.
His Excellency,
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your Excellency's most obedient servant,
Sir William Peel, K.C.M.G., K.B.E.,
(sd.) J. H. Kemp.
Chief Justice.
Governor.