The Prime Minister has asked for a report in connection with the observations in the second Progress Report of the Royal Commission on Navy and Defence Administration as to the action of this Department in not proceeding with further prosecutions against ex-Lieut. A.B.

A.B. was indicted on six charges: two for forging cheques for £1,061 7s and £1,000 7s 6d respectively, and four for the forgery of camp pay lists. These charges were selected, out of many which were available, as the best suited for prosecution. He was tried before Judge Scholes on the two charges of forging cheques, was convicted, and sentenced on each charge to four years' penal servitude, the sentences to be concurrent.

The evidence had disclosed the full exent of the frauds. The other four charges were postponed; and the Judge observed that if they should come before him for trial and the prisoner were convicted, he would take into consideration the sentences already imposed, and might make the sentences concurrent; that the charges, though differently framed, were mixed up in the charges already dealt with, and that, though the accused should be punished, the number of charges might not increase the punishment he would award.

Instructions were given by this Department that no further charges should be laid, and that only two of the pending charges should be proceeded with; and ultimately it was decided by the Cabinet not to proceed further with the prosecutions.

The procedure in this case was quite in accord with the usual practice. A system of fraud or embezzlement often-as in this case-involves the possibility of dozens, or even hundreds, of separate charges being laid. A few are selected for prosecution, and if the first two or three result in convictions, the rest are withdrawn. Any further prosecution would cost money and the time of the court, and conviction, if obtained, would probably-as was indicated to the Crown in this case-lead only to the nominal punishment of a concurrent sentence.

The observations of the Commission suggest that its members were under some misapprehension as to the utility of further prosecutions. They suggest that the failure to proceed with further charges against A.B. made it impossible to follow up the investigation of the question whether any other officials were or were not implicated in the frauds. This view is quite erroneous. On a trial of A.B. the question of the guilt or innocence of other persons would not be in issue and could not be pronounced upon, or even inquired into. That is a matter for independent investigation which would neither be helped nor hindered by the withdrawal of the prosecutions. The whole extent of the A.B. frauds was disclosed to the Court on the forgery trials; and the question whether any others were implicated was-in addition to other Departmental inquiries-exhaustively investigated by Colonel Ling and after perusal of his report and the evidence on which it was based, I am of opinion that there was not a prima facie case on which to found a charge against any other officer.

I may add that the Department of Defence asked for my advice as to whether the abandonment of the prosecutions would affect the right of the Department to recover from the A.B. estate; and they were assured that it would not.

I do not see that any useful purpose would have been served by further prosecutions.⁽¹⁾

(1)This opinion is not in Opiniion Book but was published in Commonwealth of Australia,Paral.Papers 1917-1918-19,Vol.IV,p.249.