li
2
Liistutive Concel
As a member of the Lageo Ad hoc group on the 1987 White
lc
la
Bill and subsequently on the 1988 Bill, I am glad that the Ad hoc Group's major recommendations regarding the 1987 Bill have all been incorporated in the present Bill. Firstly, I think it is of overriding significance that the definition of "Complex Commercial Crimes" should be made in relation to whether fraud or dishonesty in the commercial context is involved rather than by reference to a schedule of offences as orginally appeared in the 1987 Bill. I also consider it of major importance that complex
dis commercial crimes be confined to cases of both fraud and honesty in the commercial context and not otherwise. After all, this Birl deals with commercial crimes and I see no reason why it should not confine itself to cases only in the commercial
context.
La
The second important improvement of the present Bill on the 1987 White Bill is to give the judge the discretion to decide whether it is necessary to have a preparatory hearing before the jury is empanelled. This point, I understand, is strongly backed by the legal profession. This provision is important because it allows all reasonably foreseeable points of legal argument to be dealt with before the jury is empanelled, and it is recognised that judicial discretion should be exercised in the ordering of special procedures for the trial of complex commercial crime
cases.
The third important improvement concerns the extent of the defence's obligation to disclose his case. The original proposal in the 1987 White Bill was met with strong opposition on the ground that it was inconsistent with common law principles in that it would seek to deprive defendants of their right to silence, hence, putting them in a very disadvantageous position. I am glad that the scope of the disclosure has been narrowed down
in the present Bill under Clause 16(1)(a) to only a written