CO129-491 - Public Offices - 1925 — Page 179

but auxions to provsente Nemasse a

bis fin

guien

A

D

The whole

(in spite of the

SA Delwright

رسوم و

vatal discuseries

care.

be nichrie,

with

đ

a

copy of

the

recordû în muninter

14.0.23915/14) merely

Kans

to you.

ombed by

points onised

G

Sound kuin to cover plus

4-0.

Perhaps

Lamine it

wd. be better

the first plac

t

yel-

Mr Burokas

the

1

úgal points raised.

13/3.

Land

with

the Collins thunks.

trouble

Pertraps zon

with me.

again

this thorny que.

like to discuss

I really think that this letter from the

Home Office is very unreasonable.

Before dealing

with the main problems I would like to brush aside

two points.

In paragraph 5. the Home Office purport

to be unable to follow what the Attorney-General

says in paragraph 7, of his memorandum, which

To be this- really seems to me sille. He points out that under the Ordinance "person" includes a firm, and that on the conviction of a firm every

person concerned in the management shall also be

guilty, unless he proves that he knew nothing about it. The Attorney General merely says that Nemazee is the sole owner of the business,

175

and that as he is not in Hong Kong it is very doubtful how the conviction of some person connected with his firm would operate so as to bring him within the inference made by the provision in question.

In paragraph 4. the Home Office say that the Attorney General is wrong in his interpretation of Section 38(1)(d). I don't know what the Section intended, and it does not much matter. What it

in fact does, it seems to me, is to make it possible to prosecute anyone in Hong Kong who has been a party to the commission of an act committed out of Hong Kong, which if committed in Hong Kong would be an offence. In this particular case I do not think that the Section carries the matter any further, or would be more likely to secure a conviction than proceedings under Section 4(1), as the Attorney General suggests.

But what evidence is there of any offence? There is no evidence that Nemazee, or anyone connected with him, had anything to do with the sending of the telegram, and it is not possible to subpo na the telegraph people unless proceedings are actually commenced, and nobody likes to commence a criminal proceeding without a rag of evidence of any sort. Supposing you did subpoena the telegraph people, is it likely that the telegram, if it deals with opium, is signed in the name of Nemazee, or anyone connected with him? And even supposing it was, there is not

sufficient in the telegram to secure a conviction, since the boat was carrying other cargo, and you would

have to connect the telegram in some way with the

opium.

and