In an interview published in l?express of Friday 1 August 2003, Mr Navin Beekarry, Commissioner of the Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC) is reported as having said:

?Je suis satisfait des méthodes utilisées par les enquêteurs de l?ICAC : elles sont très professionnelles. Certaines personnes prétendent le contraire parce qu?elles ne sont pas habituées à tant de professionnalisme?.

I have a double confession to make : it is true that I am one of those ?certaines personnes? referred to by the Commissioner of the ICAC, as it is also true that I am not accustomed to such ?professionalism?. I have to admit it but in my short and uneventful career at the bar, I have never come across professional investigators who :

1. purport to serve an Order on someone summoning him to appear before them after that person had, of his own free will, attended their offices;

2. approach white collar crime as if the only way to secure a conviction was by obtaining a confession of some kind;

3. are convinced that retaining services of counsel and following his advice is tantamount to an admission of guilt;

4. purport to exercise delegated statutory powers whilst being unable to state what powers have been delegated to them and in what circumstances such powers had been delegated;

5. fight amongst themselves, in front of the person they are supposedly ?interviewing? and his counsel, to decide whether or not they should continue to ask questions;

6. tape record the taking of a written statement, without first stating for the record who was writing the statement, where, at what time and at the request of whom;

7. answer their cellular phones in the middle of a crucial ?interview? before leaving the room, without a word of apology, to continue the phone conversation;

8. confuse ?a statement in writing made under solemn affirmation? (like an affidavit) with an ?interview? and/or ?deposition taken under solemn affirmation?.

No never indeed, but I guess I had to run out of luck some day ! As the saying goes ?It never rains, it pours?; lately I have encountered another breed of professionals who choose to publish only part of a ?mise au point? before purporting to rebutt the arguments set out in the parts they choose not to publish. To rely on unsigned press articles to infer any connection between the two sets of professionals would, of course, be pure speculation and totally unprofessional !

Faced with such unusual ?professionalism?, I am simply lost for words. I do however, as a barrister, draw some comfort from the fact that each time the methods of the ICAC was subject to judicial scrutiny, the Honourable Judges and Magistrates concerned did not mince their words to express their surprise and/or disapproval.

But here again, I guess that the real ?professionals? of the ICAC have a different interpretation from mine as to the meaning of phrases like ?? availing himself, through the back door, as it were, of certain powers?? or ?in a democratic system of justice? ICAC?s approach may look frightening? !

Hervé DUVAL Jr.