XCC(86)138
Page
8
desirable for proceedings at the full hearing. Adjudicators would normally serve for not more than three years but would be eligible for reappointment. The grounds for removing adjudicators from the panel include neglect of and inability to perform their duties and other considerations common to appointments in other areas
areas of the law. As an administrative measure, the
the Judiciary would ordinarily select the panel of adjudicators for hearings from people of both sexes, and different ages and backgrounds to
a balanced representation of views.
select
ensure
of the
the Tribunal
in
24
Clause 11 describes the powers relation to its dual roles. When exercising its determinatory function, the Tribunal will be required to follow the procedures laid down in the Magistrates Ordinance. However when classifying articles, it would not be bound by such procedures but would function in a way which would not
not be acceptable under the Magistrates Ordinance. This flexibility is of particular importance in respect of interim ex parte rulings. In exercising both determinatory and classificatory functions, the Tribunal would have exclusive jurisdiction.
25
Clause 13 provides
provides for the voluntary submission of any article for classification by the Tribunal, by any printer, manufacturer, publisher, importer or distributor, and for submission by the Crown.
26
Clause 18 permits the Tribunal to refuse reconsider a classification of an article if the latter been classified within three years.
27
Clause 19 obliges the Registrar, Supreme Court, publish the classification of any article, and of conditions imposed upon its publication, by the Tribunal.
to
has
to
any
28
Clause 21 permits the Tribunal to impose conditions relating to the display and sale of indecent articles. Such flexibility, inter alia, would allow certain material which might otherwise be treated as obscene to be confined to, say, medical students at specified outlets.
29
Clause 24 makes it an offence to publish, possess for publication or import for publication any article determined obscene and introduces a fine of $1,000,000 and imprisonment for 3 years for such an offence. The relatively high maximum fine takes into consideration the high degree of profitability of obscene publications.
).