13
ANTI-CRIME BILL
18 MAY 1973 S. C. S. P. H.
UNDER FIRE
THE
PROPOSAL to give the statement added. magistrates greater powers in sentencing people convicted of crimes has serious consequences, I according to the Hongkong Bar
· Association.
The Association issued a special statement on the new Bills, introduced on Friday, that will allow magistrates to sentence people to four years' jail ! compared with the existing limit of two
years.
2.
statement issued by the Association's Special Committee on Crime and Punishment argued that an increasing number of people would be tried in the courts for serious offences. perhaps carrying mandatory sentences of imprisonment.
But they would not have the benefit of legal representation as legal aid was not available in such courts.
They would have to rely on the magistrates for a fair trial, but few, if any, magistrates had the length of experience or maturity of age normally required of judges exercising comparable sentencing powers in England and elsewhere.
"These extensions of the power of summary trial are bound to make it easier for the prosecution to obtain convictions and to increase the risks of completely innocent people being wrongly convicted of criminal offences.
"If such people have to be subjected to mandatory sentences of imprisonment or corporal punishment, this gross injustice will be even worse,'
The statement objected on similar grounds to the proposed extension of District Judges' sentencing powers from a maximum of five years to seven years.
The statement said it would have the effect of withdrawing the right of trial by jury in some cases which were now tried in the Supreme Court.
"Furthermore they will be deprived of the benefit of legal aid, unless the offence charged carries a maximum of 14 years imprisonment or more. This withdrawal of legal aid comes only six weeks after the introduction of limited legal aid in the District Court and, at best, can only be described as cynical.
"If the Government is seriously determined to get the public more involved in the administration of justice, the Committee very much doubts whether reducing the number of trials by jury will promote its objects," the statement added.
The Committee was "astonished" that the Government "should have sought to justify changes which are prejudicial to the liberty of the subject by asserting the need to relieve the serious burden now falling on the courts."
If more judges are needed, the statement suggested, the Governor or the Chief Justice should appoint more Acting District Judges and magistrates. as well as Commissioners of the Supreme Court, from the ranks of the Bar and from among the District Judges.
At the same time, the statement added, the Government could substantially shorten the length of trials by abolishing the controversial procedures for dealing with the taking of confessions by police officers.
-
of
"The Government, instead grasping the nettle of police confessions, has chosen to extend summary justice, a step requiring only a few strokes of the pen. This is not good government,” the statement asserted.
The Committee was not convinced of the effectiveness of mandatory
sentences.
The statement said: "Apart from being a serious interference with the discretion of the Judiciary and, incidentally, with its independence, the Committee feels that experience of the effects of the amendment to the Public
· Order Ordinance last year demonstrates that mandatory sentences of imprisonment are not effective ⚫ deterrents.
t
"We know of no evidence that there are fewer people carrying offensive weapons, now than there were before the amendment."
The Committee was equally unconvinced with the effectiveness of corporal punishment as an alternative to detention or imprisonment.
"We can only repeat that corporal punishment was widely used during the early history of the Colony, when crime was rampant. The object then was the same as now. It failed then and we see no reason to believe that our experience
this time will be different," the statement said.
Commenting on preventive detention, the statement said the measure would fail to meet its declared objectives.
It argued: "This measure is unlikely to be used against the big-time criminal for whose serious crimes long terms of imprisonment are already available.
"In practice, it will probably come to be used, as it was in England, against patty criminals and hopeless recidivists who are really social misfits and who in Hongkong include large numbers of drug addicts and petty thieves.
"This was the principal reason why it was abolished in 1967 in England after an experiment lasting only 19 years. These misfits are not the offenders who are causing the present wave of public concern.'
The statement criticised the Government for failing to provide enough detention centres and said that judges who wanted to administer the "short, sharp shock" found their purposes frustrated by the shortage of the institutions.
"This is still the position, and we know of no plans for substantial improvements in this direction.
"Furthermore, the Attorney-General declared last November that the introduction of preventive detention would depend upon the availability of special facilities. The Committee sees no signs that they are available, or will be available for a long time to come."
n