judgment: firstly, that, & even if the Attorney General of a Colony has power to file an ex officio information, which the Chief Justice says in the absence of direct authority or precedent he should infer he had not, the Acting Attorney General (say in the absence of the Attorney General, or during the time when the Office may be vacant between two appointments) has no power to file such an information:
Secondly, that the Crown under Ordinance 4 of 1857 Section 83 is liable for costs in matters criminal as well as civil.
As matters now stand, if an emergency arose for the Acting Attorney General to take measures, say for prosecuting the publisher of a gross libel on the Government or a seditious libel, the Executive would have to proceed knowing that the decision would be against them merely on a point of procedure, and with costs.
As the judgment deals with these as abstract propositions, it appears to me to call for serious consideration.
It is fortunate that the decision of the Chief Justice Lobo (given in Augusta v. ..., since the one in Augusta v. Jamit), where a Portuguese Judge of Macao proceeded as a private prosecutor against the Editor of a paper for libel published in this Colony, laying down as it does that it is no offence against the Law to libel a foreigner not...
!
judgment: iretly, that, & even if the Attorney General of a Colony has power to
file
an ex officio information, which the Chief dustice says
in the absence of direct authority or precedent he should infer he had not the Acting Attorney General (say in the absence of the
Attomey
Seneral, or during the time when the
Office
#
may be vacant between two
appointments) has no power to file such an information:
Secondly, that the brown
under Ordinance 4 of 1857 Section 83 is liable for costs in matters criminal as well
as civil.
As matters now stand,
if an emergency
aw
aroze
for
acting Attorney General
to take measines
say for
451
prossenting the publisher of a
gross libel on the Government or a seditions libel, the Executive would have to procud knowing
that the decision would be
point of
ow a
against them mère - procedure,
Costo
procedure, and with
As the
judgment
deals
with these as abstract propositions
it appears to me to call for
serious consideration -
It is myfortimate that
the decision of the ohrief Justice
Longa (given
in Ligina
v.
کیا
since the one in Augina v. Jamit), where a Portuguese Indge of Macas procuded as a private prosecutor against the Editor of a paper for libel published in this bolony- laying down as it does that
it is no
offence against the Law to libel a foreigner
not
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.