A.
Yes.
323.
346
..
A.
A.
A.
A.
You are familiar now with the provisions of scc. 14 of the Prevention of Bribery Crdinance?
Yes.
Do you agree with me that the provisions of that section are a Tremendous privilee and assistance to officers of the Commission compared to comparable provisions in United Kingdom in relation to investigation or offences under the ordinance?
I agree. They are.
After coming back to time honoured practice of fine. Do you think provisions it is fair to invoke these
under sec. 14 when the Commission
is not investigating an offence under that section, but under Common Law, under the guise of an offence under that ordinance?
1 have no knowledge of this ever happening.
If that has happened do you think it is an abuse of Lan?
I know of no legal provision in the Ürdinance which says that sec. 14 may only be used. i would think it would not be good practice to use sec. 14 notice in relation to other criminal offence.
section 14 of frevention of Bribery Ordinance shown to witness.7 It is only in relation to an offence under that Ordinance? Yes.
You are familiar with the Judge's Rules?
Ies.
These Rules have since been changed?
A.
Yes.
A.
2.
une of the reasons for changing was it not abuse of that "making up one's mind to charge part of the Rules?
I agree. I don't know why they were changed.
It is correct that this rule making up one's mind to charge was abused by police officers throughout United Kingdom in that an extremely julior detective was put forward to investigate a suspect without giving a caution and later that detective could perfectly truthfully say in Court. "I haven't made up my mind to charge him" because that junior detective had no power to decide whether to charge him or not as power resided in inspector or 5/5 ̧t.!
I am not accountable for police in the United Kingdom. I have some experience of police there of a very minor force of 100 odd men.
523
•
#.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.