NO REFUND ON SECRET PAYMENT FOR PROPERTY

Grey River Argus, 11 May 1948, Page 8

NO REFUND ON SECRET PAYMENT FOR PROPERTY

P.A. NELSON, May 10. “I do not think any intention should be assigned to the Legislature to hold out a bribe to an accomplice to procure a conviction,” said Mr T. E. Maunsell, S.M., in refusing an application by Wiilliam George Dement (Mr K. E. Knapp) for the return to him of part, or all, of an amount (£490) paid for a property above the valuation of the Land Sales Committee.

The vendor was last year convicted of accepting an illegal payment from Dement, the purchaser, above the approved price. After referring to the history of the case, the Magistrate said that it was necessary to consider upon what principle a Magistrate should exercise his discretion as to ordering the j return of money. “Mr Knapp, for Dement, contends that if no payment is made, the Act will be partially frustrated as to make a disclosure will be removed if the purchasers, who become accomplices to these illegal payments, can confidently rely on getting their money, or some of it, returned to them. There exists a strong inducement for purchasers to commit fraud on the vendors by agreeing to make a secret payment, and then proceeding to inform the authorities with u view to getting their money back. “I do not say that Dement had ,any fradulent intent. I speak merely of the principle. I do not think any intention should be assigned to the Legislature to hold out a bribe to an accomplice to procure a conviction. I think Mi- Knapp’s contention is answered by the position that the Legislature had in mind in those cases where the authorities have some reason to suspect, from information received from outside sources that an offence has been committed, and the purchaser is required to give evidence. That Act says: ‘ls a person required to be examined?’ Dement was not required to give evidence. He was a very willing witness. For these reasons the application will be refused.”