§ Dr. Petersasked the Attorney-General whether, having regard to the conviction of the Reverend Harry Clapham at the Old Bailey and the inadequacy of the provisions of the Larceny Acts, 1861 and 1916, relative to the imposition of a fine of unlimited amount and to restitution of money and property to meet circumstances in this and other cases where the convicted offender is left with a substantial fortune resulting from his wrong-doing, he will consider amending the law so that moneys, property and/or securities and investments so wrongfully obtained and incapable of being the subject of a restitution order by the court, shall be confiscated to the State and thus prove a deterrent to possible offenders and establish in our law the principle that a criminal shall not be permitted to retain the proceeds of his crime as he now does.
§ The Attorney-GeneralAs stated in answer to a Question last week the question whether proceedings can be taken under the law as it exists to-day in the case referred to is being considered. In many cases where a restitution order cannot be made under the Acts referred to civil proceedings can be taken. I agree with the principle set out in the latter part of the Question, but if there are gaps in the law as it is at present, amending legislation might not be practicable in present circumstances.