but the majority were against the proposed soluton of trial by judge and adjudicators. Nearly all regarded the Bill's proposal as an important change to the existing legal system and called for careful and detailed consideration. The main objections were: first, trial by jury was a safeguard for civic liberties and it should not be replaced unless there was clear evidence that the jury system was not working properly. Second, it would be difficult to find an adequate number of impartial adjudicators in the small business community of Hong Kong.
There was a strong demand for deferring the Bill in order to allow more time for public discussion. Specifically, the Ad Hoc Group identified four common requests:
(i) Wait for the UK Fraud Trials (Roskill) Committee report which would be available later in 1985 so that Hong Kong could use its findings and recommendations for reference.
(ii) Consult as widely as possible before any changes were made.
(iii) Examine alternative ways of solving the problem relating to the trial of complex commercial crimes.
(iv) Refer the matter to the Law Reform Commission for consideration.
As regards the detailed provisions of the Bill, not much comment was received except for Clause 7 which provided that the judge should retire to discuss with the adjudicators after his summing up in open court and that the verdict should be delivered without any reasons given. All who expressed views on this provision were unanimously opposed to it.
A substantial number of individuals and organisations who made representations to UMELCO indicated that they would wish to reserve their position, especially in respect of details of the Bill itself. A view would be expressed after they had an opportunity to consider all the relevant facts and alternative means of solving the problem of prosecuting and trying complex commercial crimes in Hong Kong.
The Ad Hoc Group held seven meetings, some of which were to receive representations and some to hold discussions with the Administration, before submitting a final report to a full meeting of all LegCo Unofficials on 24.4.85. Apart from reflecting the views received by UMELCO, the Group recommended and all Unofficial Members agreed that:
(i) The Bill be adjourned indefinitely to allow more time for discussion and to take Roskill's findings into consideration.
(ii) A select committee be formed under Standing Order No. 61 of the Legislative Council to consider the whole issue of trial of complex commercial crimes.
A motion was moved accordingly by the Senior Unofficial Member, Sir Roger Lobo, at the following LegCo sitting on 1.5.85. The motion read:
"That a select committee be appointed to consider and report on the appropriate measures to be taken to resolve the problems involved in the prosecution and trial of complex commercial crimes, including changes in the procedures before and during the trial and the mode of trial."
On moving the motion, Sir Roger said that whatever the merits of the Bill might be, public opinion was such that it would be unwise to proceed with the measure until there had been a thorough examination of all the options available. He also said that the Administration should not be criticised for failing to consult adequately. The original response to the proposal had generally been in favour of a change in the mode of trial for complex commercial crimes. But since the Bill was published on 8.3.85, many people expressed strong views that they had not volunteered during the consultative process.
Speaking for the motion, Mr Peter C WONG, Convener of the Ad Hoc Group, reported all the major findings of the group and said that in a somewhat unprecedented controversy public opinion had won the day, and that was as it should be. However, he gave credit to the Administration for tackling a problem which all agreed existed and should be solved as expeditiously as possible. He agreed with Sir Roger that it would be unfair to criticise the Administration for failing to consult adequately. Several draft discussion papers and draft Bills had been circulated for comments but unfortunately there appeared to be a breakdown in communication. Some of those consulted had changed their mind, which, however, was perfectly legitimate.
In explaining why a select committee should be appointed under Standing Order 61 (1), Mr WONG said that in the public debate and representations to UMELCO, many issues had been raised but some of those fell outside the Bill's provisions.
The select committee should be able to study the whole matter in a wider context and to examine principles as well as details. It should consider and report on the appropriate measures to be taken to resolve the problems involved in the prosecution and trial of complex commercial crimes, including changes in the procedures before and during trial and not just the mode of trial.
Regarding the suggestion that the matter should be referred to the Law Reform Commission, Mr WONG said that since the Bill was with the Legislative Council, it was Members' responsibility to decide what course of action would be in the best interests of our community.
Speaking for the Official side, the Attorney General said he welcomed the motion moved by Sir Roger and the Government would support it. It was part of his duty to formulate and propose changes in the law where it seemed to him that there was scope for improvement and increased efficiency in the administration of justice. Present arrangements for the prosecution and trial of complex commercial crimes did seem to him to raise serious problems, and so he proposed the Bill for the Council's consideration. But since the original support for the proposal had faded, he considered it fraught with danger to introduce such a mode of trial, for public confidence in the justice of our trial procedure was far more important than the choice between one mode of
trial and another. He reckoned that a variety of suggestions had come out of the controversy and they deserved to be calmly and carefully considered. He therefore welcomed the appointment of a select committee because it would afford more time to find the right way forward in a difficult
area.
Referring to the change in public attitude towards the Bill's proposal, the Attorney General quoted a line from Omar Khayam, 'the moving finger writes and having writ, moves on'. He said it was unfortunate that the discussion paper was published in July 1984 when the community had more important things to worry about, i.e. the future of Hong Kong. Since the publication of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, he detected a new mood of wariness to change, particularly changes to the legal system, on which the rule of law and the preservation of individual rights and freedom so much
14