WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 1985
-
13
BILL PROVIDES ADDITIONAL MODE OF TRIAL
******
THE TRIAL OF COMMERCIAL CRIMES BILL 1985 WOULD PROVIDE THE COURTS WITH AN ADDITIONAL MODE OF TRIAL SPECIFICALLY FOR THE CASES OF COMPLEX COMMERCIAL CRIMES, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE HON MICHAEL THOMAS, SAID TODAY.
MOVING THE SECOND READING OF THE BILL IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, MA THOMAS SAID IT WAS AN INEVITABLE PART OF THE ON-GOING PROCESS OF STRENGTHENING OUR CRIMINAL PROCEDURES TO SERVICE NEW DEMANDS.
EXPLAINING THE PROPOSALS CONTAINED IN THE BILL MR THOMAS SAID ANY COMPLEX COMMERCIAL CRIME MIGHT PRESENTLY GO TO THE HIGH COURT FOR TRIAL BY HIGH COURT JUDGE AND JURY OR TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR TRIAL BY DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ALONE.
UNDER THIS BILL, MR THOMAS SAID, THE PROSECUTION OR THE DEFENCE WOULD BE ABLE TO APPLY TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO HAVE THE CASE TRIED INSTEAD BEFORE THREE COMMERCIAL ADJUDICATORS SITTING WITH THE JUDGE.
+IN THE HIGH COURT THIS WOULD RELIEVE THE ORDINARY JURY OF THE HEAVY BURDEN OF ADJUDICATION, IN THE DISTRICT COURT, THIS WOULD ASSIST THE JUDGE IN HIS BURDEN OF ADJUDICATION, HE SAID.
+ IN BOTH COURTS, THE JUDGE WOULD ENJOY THE ADVANTAGE OF SHARING IN THE SPECIAL EXPERTISE AND SKILLS OF THE ADJUDICATORS TO UNDERSTAND AND EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE,+ MR THOMAS SAID.
HE SAID HE DID NOT SUPPOSE THAT MORE THAN TEN CASES A YEAR WOULD QUALIFY AS COMPLEX COMMERCIAL CRIMES, LONG AND HEAVY THOUGH THEY MIGHT BE.
+ONLY WHERE THE CHIEF JUSTICE WAS SATISFIED THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS LIKELY TO BE DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND OR APPRECIATE BECAUSE OF ITS TECHNICALITY OR QUANTITY, AND THAT THE JUSTICE OF THE MATTER WOULD BE BEST SERVED BEFORE A TRIAL BY COMMERCIAL ADJUDICATORS WOULD THIS PROPOSED MODE OF TRIAL TAKE EFFECT,+ HE SAID.
MR THOMAS STRESSED THAT THE BILL DID NOTHING TO ABOLISH ANY MODE OF TRIAL, STILL LESS TO ABOLISH TRIAL BY JURY. + IT PROVIDES AN ADDITIONAL MODE OF TRIAL FOR THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO USE WHEN APPROPRIATE, HE SAID.
BOTH THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENCE WOULD, OF COURSE, BE ENTITLED TO BE HEARD ON THE MATTER AND TO RAISE OBJECTIONS" TO THE PARTICULAR ADJUDICATORS PROPOSED FOR APPOINTMENT.
JUST AS WITH JURORS, MR THOMAS SAID, IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY AXE TO GRIND, NOR SHOULD THEY BE PREJUDICED BY PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRANSACTION.
/+I AM