31(4) above. There is no requirement for the grounds for detention to be set out; no particulars are at any stage given, as contrasted with the United Kingdom Regulation 18B (5) above. The Bar Committee appreciates, of course, that the Committee of Review is not functioning in any way as an appeal tribunal, and that the Committee is not in any way concerned with the sufficiency of reasons for making a deten- tion order. But, if a Committee of Review is to have any functions at all, it seems that it must be at least concerned with the following matters:
(i) To ensure that the Colonial Secretary has exercised his powers bona fide and not merely under the pretence of using Regulation 31 for the purpose of detaining some person on some other grounds altogether.
(ii) To ensure that the person detained is the
person aimed at by the order.
The considerations enumerated as (i) and (ii) above in this paragraph are matters which Tucker, J. in Stuart v. Anderson (1941) 2 A.E.R. page 670 at paragraphs E, F and G thought could properly be the concern of a Court of Law in consider- ing Detention Orders made under Regulation 18B.
18B. A fortiori they must be the concern of a Committee of Review.
8. The Bar Committee therefore feels that the deten- tion powers and procedure under Regulation 31 as con- stituted at present result in intolerable situations which sum- marized are as follows:
(i) The Colonial Secretary is given powers of
detention unfettered by any considerations other than "public interest";
28
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.