It's been over 3 weeks since Hubbard was put into Statutory Management. The report comes back with the word "may" ....
Imagine you were a High Court judge reading this ... you had to sign a warrant putting Allan Hubbard into Statutory Management ... and the evidence presented is ... "may" ...
In all fairness, what would you do?
You seem to be advocating the use of exceptional powers of regulation on the suspicion, or hint of impropriety.
Even if you turn your "may" into a more definite tense - you can prosecute under the Finance Act or Securities Act or whatever - you have a conventional remedy. You do not need Statutory Management.
If, however, you want to go on a evidence gathering "fishing expedition" while trampling on Allan Hubbard's basic rights - the right to due process - which is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law - the Statutory Management regulations are ideal. You can do what you like - there are no pesky laws of evidence to check or limit your actions.
The only public commentator to say much about this is David Hillary - the advocate of natural justice. He is perfectly happy to have almost every major point of natural justice overturned, in this case (he defends statutory management on his blog).
These are key elements of natural justice according to Wikipaedia:
* A Right to Advanced Warning. Contractual obligations depriving individuals of their Rights cannot be imposed retrospectively. Allan Hubbard has all rights extinguished with no warning or sufficient time to prepare an answer to the questions that lead to his statutory management
* A person accused of a crime, or at risk of some form of loss, should be given adequate notice about the proceedings (including any charges). Allan Hubbard has all rights extinguished with no charge
* A person making a decision should declare any personal interest they may have in the proceedings. Simon Botherway declared his interest after making the statutory management decision
* A person who makes a decision should be unbiased and act in good faith. He or she therefore cannot be one of the parties in the case, or have an interest in the outcome. This is expressed in the Latin maxim, nemo iudex in causa sua: "no man is permitted to be judge in his own cause". Simon Botherway comes uncomfortably close on this one
* Proceedings should be conducted so they are fair to all the parties - expressed in the Latin maxim audi alteram partem: "let the other side be heard". Where is Hubbards right of reply - how can he present his case
* Each party to a proceeding is entitled to ask questions and contradict the evidence of the opposing party. Again, where are Hubbard's rights on this matter
* A decision-maker should take into account relevant considerations and extenuating circumstances, and ignore irrelevant considerations. The fact that Allan Hubbard kept manual journals and these were copied into an information system - the fact that he did not have fancy automation systems, that he would not have used - are not crimes, and are irrelevant to Allan Hubbard's statutory management - yet this is presented as a key element of criticism in the Statutory Manager's report
* Justice should be seen to be done. If the community is satisfied that justice has been done, they will continue to place their faith in the courts. Epic fail on this one Minister Power - in terms of your order in council. Let's hope that the true arbiters of justice can restore some reputation
Not a good look for David Hillary, supporter of natural justice?!?