Attorney General V. Michael De Livera

[IN THE PRIVY COUNCIL]

1962 Present: Viscount Radelifle, Lord Evershed, Lord Jenkins,
 Lord Devlin, and Mr. L. M. D. de Silva

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Appellant, and M. G. J. MICHAEL DE LIVERA
and another, Respondents

Privy Council Appeal No. 6 of 1961

S. C. 31 A-B-D. C. (Criminal) Colombo, N 1939

Bribery Act (No. 11 of 1954)-Section 14 (a)-Bribery of a member of Parliament- Quantum of evidence-" In his capacity as such member "-Ceylon (Constitution) Order in Council, 1946, ss. 18, 27, 46, 49 (2)-Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act (No. 21 of 1953), ss. 7, 8.

Section 14 (a) of the Bribery Act (No. 11 of 1954) runs as follows :-

" A person-

(a) who offers any gratification to a judicial officer, or to a member of either the Senate or the House of Representatives, as an inducement or a reward for such officer's or member's doing or forbearing to do any act in his judicial capacity or in his capacity as such member,

shall be guilty of an offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or a fine not exceeding five thousand rupees or both. Provided, however, that ..... "

Held, that, where the facts show clearly that a member of Parliament has come into or been brought into a matter of Government action that affects his constituency, that his intervention is attributable to his membership and that it is the recognised and prevailing practice that the Government Department concerned should consult the local M. P. and invite his views, the action that he takes in approaching the Minister or his Department is taken by him " in his capacity as such member " within the meaning of Section 14 (a) of the Bribery Act.

In interpreting the meaning of the words of the Bribery Act which speak of the capacity of a member of the House of Representatives it is proper to draw any assistance that can be obtained from practices, conventions or rulings that govern the conduct of members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Although the Constitution of Ceylon is laid down by a written instrument, unlike that of the United Kingdom, this distinction is not of any significance for the determination of what is the " capacity " of a member of Parliament in either country. 

APPEAL, with special leave, from, a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1960) 62 N. L. R. 25.

Neil Lawson, Q. C., with Dick Taverne and M. Kanagasunderam, for the appellant.

E. F. N. Gratiaen, Q. C., with S. Nadesan, Q. C., Godfrey le Quesne and Bala Nadarajah, for the 1st accused-respondent.

No appearance for the 2nd accused-respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

November 5, 1962. [Delivered by VISCOUNT RADCLIFFE]-

This appeal raises for decision a single point: What is the proper interpretation of the words " in his capacity as such member " which appear in Section 14 (a) of the Ceylon Bribery Act (No. 11 of 1954) ? The " member " referred to is a member of the Senate or the House of .Representatives and the section, as amended by the addition of a proviso that was added in 1956, runs as follows :-

" A person-

(a) who offers any gratification to a judicial officer, or to a member of either the Senate or the House of Representatives, as an inducement or a reward for such officer's or member's doing or forbearing to do any act in his judicial capacity or in his capacity as such member, or

(b) who, being a judicial officer or a member of either the Senate or the House of Representatives, solicits or accepts any gratification as an inducement or a reward for doing or forbearing to do any act in his judicial capacity or in his capacity as such member,

shall be guilty of an offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years or a fine not exceeding five thousand rupees or both :

Provided, however, that it shall not be an offence under the preceding provisions of this section for any trade union or other organization t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document