CO129-537-3 Deportation Ordinance- 1932- Bill 8-3-1932 - 28-9-1932 — Page 11

25836/23

- 2

3.

Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of clause 6 (i)

were aimed at a particular group of persons, (solicitors' interpreters) and it is believed that

they have been invoked in one case only in the last

fifteen years and then unsuccessfully. The omission

of these paragraphs is not therefore a matter of moment from the point of view of the effectiveness of

the bill, whilst on the other hand it removes much of

the reason for insistence on a judicial trial, which, as appears from the Duke of Devonshire's despatch of

the 18th June, 1923, was rendered necessary by the

fact that these three paragraphs involved a preliminary

finding of guilt of a criminal offence by an executive

body.

4. Paragraph (d) of clause 6 (i) concerns persons of dual nationality, generally Chinese, who but for the accident of birth (which is seldom registered)

would have been liable to summary deportation under

clause 3 (i). Paragraph (e) of clause 6 (i) deals

with specially dangerous persons. It would seem

that both these classes of persons are sufficiently protected by the long procedure required by clause 6 (2) and the report to the Secretary of State, who can always direct a revocation of the deportation order, by clause 19. The determination of the question whether

a person, coming under paragraph (e) of clause 6 (i)

"is about to act in a manner prejudicial to public safety" seems more appropriate to the Executive than to a

judicial tribunal.

5.