4
But I agree with Mr. Roberts-Wray that
the Governor or the Attorney-General should
properly have given some explanation of Clause 7(3)
in relation to the circular despatch, and I suggest
that in sanctioning the Ordinance we should draw
attention to the desirability of this being done.
in any future case, and add that the Secretary of
State assumes that the prosecution will itself be
under the onus of proving the point mentioned above
at A.
Sallent.
23.1.35.
means
As I read the Circular despatch, it seems
that all legislation placing the onus of proof on the
accused in the case of unlawful possession of goods
is open to objection, and that though it is a necessary
evil in the case of predial larceny, no legislation
of this kind, whatever its purpose, should be intro-
duced unless it is first submitted in draft with a
full explanation. I agree with the construction
suggested by Mr. Gent at "A" in his minute, but I very
much doubt whether this is intended, since Section
7(3) is no doubt designed to save trouble for the
prosecution, and it would presumably be anything but
an easy matter to prove that a quantity of sand found,
say, in a man's home was sand as defined in the
Ordinance. I still think, moreover, that the
Section should be limited to cases where there is
reasonable suspicion that the sand was unlawfully
obtained, and that the Governor should be asked to
consider