HC Deb 29 February 1956 vol 549 cc1181-2
39. Mrs. White

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reasons led to the provisions in the Tanganyika Penal Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 1955, that a person charged under Section 63B is to be assumed to have published the statement complained of with criminal intent until he has proved the contrary, and the provisions that empower the Governor in Council to prohibit the importation into Tanganyika of books which have not yet been written.

Mr. Hare

Under Section 63B it is incumbent on the prosecution to satisfy the court that the actions of an accused person were likely to promote discontent or The provision described in the Question makes it a defence for the accused to prove that his statement was made or published solely for a legitimate purpose. The burden of proving this was no doubt placed upon the accused because whether this defence is or is not available to him must be a matter particularly within his knowledge and is not likely to be known to the prosecution.

As regards the second part of the Question, this provision is designed to deal with any publisher, for example a Communist-dominated organisation, who consistently publishes matter considered to be contrary to the public interest if circulated in Tanganyika.

Mrs. White

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that these provisions are very wide of the model ordinances and that the principles involved in them are at variance with those usually accepted as principles of justice in a British court? On the question of publication, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is most undesirable that a general prohibition can be made concerning books or other matter not yet written, which therefore cannot possibly be read and judged?

Mr. Hare

I should like to point out that a person cannot be prosecuted without the written consent of the Attorney-General. The implication that the new Section removes the onus of proof from the prosecution to the defence is misleading, because the prosecution must still satisfy the court that the actions of the accused were likely to raise discontent and ill-will and no court, in my submission, would be likely to convict unless satisfied on this point. I think that I made it clear that the overall ban on publication was on the publications of organisations such as the World Federation of Trade Unions and the World Federation of Democratic Unions, which are well-known Communist organisations.