Question 2

The Old Party had held political power in Pacifika for many years. It eventually lost an election to the New Party following the eruption of a scandal about corrupt payments to the Old Party by property developers. One of the developers who had been under investigation for making corrupt payments was Simon Sleeze. An assistant to the new Director of Public Prosecutions who had been appointed by the New Party Government approached Sleeze and suggested that, if he would agree to be a witness against members of the Old Government, the DPP would indemnify him against prosecution for his own involvement in corruption. Slime agreed and an indemnity was issued. The effective part of the indemnity stated:

"I...Director of Public Prosecutions for the State, do hereby undertake that, subject to his cooperation with law enforcement agencies in proceedings about corruption offences, no prosecution will be brought or continued against Simon Sleeze for any offences of official corruption on his part."

Mary Muck had been Minister of Public Utilities in the Old Government. She was charged with an offence of corruption under s x of the Pacifika Penal Code, which stated:

Any person who-(a) being employed in the public service, and being charged with the performance of any duty by virtue of such employment, corruptly asks for, solicits, receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain, any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person on account of anything already done or omitted to be done, or to be afterwards done or omitted to be done, by him in the discharge of the duties of his office is guilty of....

The charge stated that the State Prosecutor

...informs the court that on occasions between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2022 at locations in Capital City and in Resort Town, Mary Muck, being a Minister of the State and being charged with the performance of the duties of such office, corruptly received from Simon Sleeze property or benefits for things to be done or omitted to be done in the discharge of such duties, contrary to the Penal Code.

At trial, the prosecution case relied primarily on the evidence of Sleeze.

1. Were there any defects in the charge?
2. Should the evidence of Sleeze be admitted at the trial?
3. Suppose that, following the prosecution evidence, Fairgo J indicated that, because of the indemnity, she was seriously considering excluding Sleeze's evidence or imposing a permanent stay of proceedings. The prosecutor then sought to prevent either of these outcomes by withdrawing the charge (entering a nolle prosequi). Should Fairgo J accept the nolle prosequi?