CONFIDENTIAL
Equally obviously you will not wish, in the interests
of pursuing the corrupt few, to remove safeguards
on which honest members of the public service have
come to rely. We agreed with the Governor when he
was here that, for both purposes, there was advantage
in some formal procedures where these were possible. With these thoughts in mind we think (your paragraph 8) that it would be a mistake so to alter regulations
62 and 59 that you could dispose of an officer under
the latter, simply on the basis of a record of a
criminal case in which he had been acquitted. It
would be too easy for a disgruntled person to claim
that, having been acquitted, he had been bundled out
without any further investigation and with no
opportunity to make representations on his own
behalf. Such a complaint would not be easy to deal
with. In any case, provided that the procedures
under regulation 59 are as simple as we are now
thinking they can be, there seems no reason why you
cannot go through those procedures very quickly after
an acquittal.
6.
We agree, with minor qualifications, to the
second half of your paragraph 8, and offer the
attached draft of an amendment for your consideration
The intention is that evidence specifically disbelieved
by the court would have to be left on one side, while
facts inconsistent with the facts found by the court
would have to be supported by new evidence. This is
intended to get round the Blair-Kerr
accusations of imprecision.
Report's
17.
*
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.