9558.
No. 38.
(MAURITIUS.)
PUBLIC RECORD
OFFICE
Reference :-
mmi......mim C.O.
885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, June 6, 1893.
MY LORD,
We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Wingfield's letter of the 16th ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to enclose a copy of an opinion of the Procureur-Général of Mauritius, upon a question submitted to him by the off cer in command of the troops in the Colony, together with a copy of the Colonial Ordinance No. 6 of 1891 therein referred to.
That the Procureur-Général was of opinion that section 3 of the Ordinance, which made the commission of certain acts an offence triable summarily by a magistrate, and punishable by fine not exceeding Rs. 1,000, or imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months, was repugnant to the Official Secrets Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 52), under which the commission of the same acts was a misdemeanour, which was punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or fine, or both imprisonment and fine, and which could not be tried by any court out of the United Kingdom which had not jurisdiction to try crimes involving the greatest punishment allowed by law.
That the Secretary of State for War considered it desirable that such offences should be dealt with by Colonial rather than Imperial legislation, and that he had suggested that the Mauritius Ordinance should be extended, so as to include the case of a person who communicated or disclosed information obtained by means of his holding an office or employment under the Crown, but that before communicating with the Governor of the Colony on the subject, your Lordship wished to know whether we concurred in the view of the Colonial Law Officer as to the repugnancy of the Ordinance to the Official Secrets Act.
"
That Mr. Wingfield was to observe that section 5 of the Act contemplated Colonial legislation to the like effect to the provisions of the Act; and that it might be a question whether that condition was fulfilled by a law which prescribed a different scale of punishment for, and a different tribunal for trying, an offence which would be an offence under the Act.
That Mr. Wingfield was also to observe that the saving clause (section 9) of the Act did not in terms extend to proceedings for offences punishable under a colonial law.
That Mr. Wingfield was to enclose, for reference, a copy of a report of the late Law Officers upon the question of the competency of the Legislature of Newfoundland to pass a law providing for the trial in a summary manner of offences which, under an Imperial Act, would be triable by the Supreme Court; and that he was to request that we would advise your Lordship:—-
(1.) Whether section 3 of the Mauritius Ordinance, No. 6 of 1891, was repugnant to the Official Secrets Act, 1889 ?
(2.) Whether the Official Secrets Act exempted a person who committed an offence against that Act which was also an offence against the Mauritius Ordinance from proceedings under the Ordinance?
(3.) Whether the operation in Mauritius of the Official Secrets Act, so far as it related to offences which were punishable under the Mauritius Ordinance, might properly be suspended by Order in Council under section 5 of the Act.
Having taken the matter into our consideration we have the honour to
Report-
That in our opinion (1) section 3 of the Mauritius Ordinance, No. 6 of 1891, is not repugnant to the Official Secrets Act, 1889.
Under section 3 of the Ordinance it is an 'offence to make any sketch or other thing referred to, although there may be no wrongful motive, whilst under the Act the purpose of obtaining wrongful information is made the gist of the offence.
(2.) The Official Secrets Act does not exempt a person who commits an offence against that Act which is also an offence against the Mauritius Ordinance from pro- ceedings under the Ordinance.
o 74772.-21. 95.-6/91