(2) the enactment of a provision which would enable a court, upon conviction of a person of an offence under section 10 to make an order which would operate as a forfeiture order or a judgment in favour of the Crown, in respect of such proportion of the pecuniary resources or property, the control of which the accused is unable to explain satisfactorily. (paragraph 133);
(3) The enactment of legislation which would enable the Attorney General to make an order in the nature of an order for attachment which would have the effect of preventing banks and similar institutions from honouring the instructions of a client in relation to assets in their possession which were the subject matter of an investigation in respect of an offence under the Ordinance, without the consent of the Attorney General. (paragraph 135);
(4) the enactment of a provision which would enable or require, a court, upon convicting under section 3, to order the accused to return the advantage received by him. (paragraph 139).
Section 13. I recommend that:
(1) the Attorney General be empowered to authorize the inspection and investigation of bank and other accounts operated by Crown servants, irrespective of any question of a suspected offence. (paragraph 140);
(2) in the alternative, that section 13 be amended to read
(a) “where it appears to the Attorney General that an offence under this Ordinance may
have been committed by any person, he may❞ etc.
or (b) “where it appears to the Director that an offence under this Ordinance may have
been committed" etc. (paragraph 147).
Section 14. A person suspected of an offence should not be permitted, with impunity, to ignore a notice issued by the Attorney General. I therefore recommend that section 14(4) be amended by the deletion of the words
"other than the person referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1).”
(paragraphs 153-154).
Section 17. At present this investigatory section begins:
"If it appears to the Attorney General or to the Director . . .”.
If the intention is that the Director should have power to issue search warrants, there is no reason why the section should make reference to the Attorney General. Furthermore, as in the case of section 13, section 17 is a most important investigatory provision; and it is most undesirable that successful prosecution should be “stiffed at birth”, so to speak. I recommend that section 17 be amended so as to read:
"If it appears to the Director that in any place . . . there may be any document or thing containing any evidence of the commission of an offence under this Ordinance, he may” etc. (paragraph 160).
Section 26.
(1) I see no reason why the prosecution should not be permitted to comment on the failure of an accused to give evidence; and that section 26 be amended accordingly. (para- graph 164);
(2) I recommend the enactment of a provision to the effect that when the prosecution have adduced sufficient evidence of a fact to be considered by a court, the failure of the accused to give evidence denying the fact should be capable of corroborating the evidence of it. (paragraph 165).
Section 30.
When a section 14 notice is issued or a search warrant under section 17 has been executed, a suspect has been alerted; and it is pointless for everyone to go on maintaining silence. The section is causing much confusion. It may not be possible to amend it; but the practical objections to it might be overcome if, after a certain stage in the investigation, the press were told that they would not be infringing section 30 by disclosing the name of the person under investigation. (paragraph 167).
(e) Colonial Regulations, and the practice in regard to disciplinary procedure, give Government
servants far too much protection. Hitherto, it has been
"a cardinal principle that Government does not institute disciplinary proceedings in respect of
a criminal offence which it cannot prosecute for lack of evidence." (paragraph 178).
53
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.