JUSTICE (HONG KONG BRANCH)
- 2-
Tom Sargant, Esq.
30th May, 1973
Considerable disquiet has been expressed over the first two Bills. Responsible organizations in Hong Kong would, naturally, wish to support the Government's aim to combat crime. What is unacceptable is that, in purported implementation of the campaign the Government is in fact seeking to reduce trial by jury in Hong Kong in serious cases, and to deprive many accused persons of legal aid.
The Government's proposal is that "some of the more serious cases now tried in the Supreme Court should be tried in the District Court" and "to arrange for more indictable offences to be tried summarily before the magistrates' courts" (the Explanatory Memoranda to the two Bills). In the South China Morning Post of the 24th May, the Acting Attorney General is reported as saying in the Legislative Council that "the legislation was designed to empower District Court Judges to hear serious cases currently tried in the Supreme Court." This is totally inconsistent with the Government's declared policy of seeking greater community involvement in the fight against crime.
In order to understand our anxiety over this proposal to bring more cases before the District Court and Magistrates' Courts, we must explain some of the features of trial in these courts.
(a) Trial in the Supreme Court is the same as any jury trial in England, save that proceedings take longer because of the need to rely on interpreters.
(b) The District Court has the following principal dis- advantages:-
(i) there is no shorthand writer, and the judge is
duty bound to record everything which is said in court opening and closing speeches, submissions and evidence. It is rarely, if ever, possible for a judge to assess the demeanour of the witnesses because he has no real opportunity to observe them. And yet, as the sole judge of fact, his findings of fact will be upheld by judges of the Appeal Court on the ground that, unlike them, "he has seen and heard the witnesses. defendants, whether represented or not, are not given any depositions, but by an unoffficial arrangement with the Crown, they usually receive a short summary of the facts, which is invariably read by prosecuting Counsel as his opening speech.
(ii)
#*