John Tilney, Esq., M.P.,
31st December, 1968.
normally it is necessary for detainees to be dealt with under a cloak of secrecy: witnesses etc. might fear reprisal if their identity were disclosed; sources of information might have to be withheld from the detainee; representation by counsel or solicitor might have to be curbed. However, these are matters fully anticipated already under Deportation & Detention procedure which enables the Tribunal to hear evidence in the absence of the detainee and to exclude legal representatives from attending. It is difficult to see why the balance between public security and individual liberty achieved in the Deportation & Detention Regulations, 1962 should not be generally applied. Nobody has as yet put forward any good reasons why the Colonial Secretary needs to have powers identical with those exercisable by the Bourbon Kings of France under "lettres de cachet" prior to
1789.
7. What is disturbing is the general lack of appre- ciation on the above points: even, apparently, on the part of Government. In his press conference on his return from London recently, the Governor is reported to have said: "The law requires that the detainees be released when they are no longer considered a security threat". The law, of
It is because the law course, does nothing of the sort.
-
has conferred a complete carte blanche on the Colonial : Secretary that the voice of protest against Regulation 31
is raised in the first place.
Yours
யர்
Водород
"
bay wishes
دراة
fécun
3
14
Page 135Page 136
世
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.