The Week in Parliament Our Parliamentary Correspondent writes : Many
Members are disposed to agree with The Speclalor in the comments that it made on the -findings of the Budget Tribunal. They are convinced that there is no evidence of a deliberate disclosure of Budget secrets of a kind that would satisfy a jury. Admittedly the Tribunal was not a court of law, but its findings have inevitably produced some of the consequences of a conviction in a court of law. It is therefore fair to point out that the Tribunal acted as prosecutor, jury and judge combined, and that Mr. Thomas was deprived by the procedure of the elementary rights of every man accused of a criminal offence, of being permitted to cross-examine witnesses, of being tried by a jury of his fellow-citizens and if the verdict went against him of being able to appeal to a higher court. There is a strong opinion that Mr. Thomas- can justly claim that he has been condemned on circumstantial evidence so thin that the Attorney- General does not regard it as justifying the criminal charge which should certainly follow if the facts as stated in the Budget reports were correct.
* * *
Previous page
