Harbouring prosecution stays pending determination of the alleged offender's guilt, preserving the presumption of innocence.

A prosecution for harbouring an offender was treated as premature where the penal charge depended on proving that the harboured person was in fact an offender. The court held that, until the alleged offender's guilt is judicially determined, the harbouring accused may rely on the presumption of innocence and the connected prosecution should ordinarily be held in abeyance. The trial was therefore stayed until disposal of the case against the alleged offender, granting interim protection to the person accused of harbouring.

---

---

Issues: Whether a prosecution for harbouring an offender was premature until the alleged offender had been apprehended, tried, or convicted, and whether the trial should be stayed pending disposal of the offender's case.

Analysis: The charge depended on the existence of an "offender" within the meaning of the penal provision. Until the alleged offender's guilt was determined, the prosecution against the person accused of harbouring him could not be treated as fully ripe. The existing authorities supported the view that such proceedings should ordinarily be held up until the connected trial had reached its conclusion, because the accused harboured person is entitled to rely on the presumption of innocence until conviction.

Conclusion: The prosecution was treated as premature and the trial was ordered to be stayed until disposal of the case against the alleged offender.

Final Conclusion: Interim protection was granted to the accused by postponing the harbouring prosecution until the connected criminal case was decided.

Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution for harbouring a person alleged to be an offender should not proceed to trial until the alleged offender's guilt has been judicially determined, where the offence depends on proof that the person harboured was in fact an offender.

---