WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 1988
AND THE
JUDGE
"THIS WAS THOUGHT UNDERSIRABLE,
IS NOW GIVEN THE DISCRETION TO DECIDE WHETHER, HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF A CASE, THERE WILL BE A NEED TO HOLD A PREPARATORY HEARING BEFORE THE JURY IS EMPANELLED, HE SAID.
I
MR WONG ALSO SAID THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL CONTAINED IN THE WHITE BILL WAS FOR THE DEFENCE TO SUPPLY A WRITTEN OUTLINE OF ITS CASE IN RESPONSE TO EACH OF THE PRINCIPAL FACTS IN THE PROSECUTION
CASE, AND SPECIFYING THE PRINCIPAL FACTS UPON WHICH THE DEFENCE CASE WAS BASED.
THE AD HOC GROUP FELT THAT THE SCOPE OF SUCH A PROVISION WAS TOO WIDE, HE SAID.
THE GOVERNMENT SUBSEQUENTLY AGREED THAT THE DEFENCE CASE OUTLINE BE REPLACED BY A "DEFENCE RESPONSE" WHICH WAS MERELY A WRITTEN STATEMENT INDICATING, WITH REFERENCE TO THE PROSECUTION CASE STATEMENT, THE FACTS ON WHICH THE DEFENCE WOULD TAKE ISSUE WITH THE PROSECUTION.
IN SIMPLE TERMS, THE DEFENCE WOULD NOT NOW BE OBLIGED REVEAL ITS DEFENCE AT THE PREPARATORY HEARING.
TO
THE GOVERNMENT HAD ALSO AGREED TO THE AD HOC GROUP'S SUGGESTION THAT NO CHANGE TO THE
PROSECUTION STATEMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED EXCEPT WHERE THE JUDGE WAS SATISFIED THAT THE CHANGE HAD BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT BY UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PROSECUTION.
WAS
THE AMENDMENT
WAS MADE IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, HE SAID.
MR WONG ADDED THAT A MAJOR HURDLE IN DELIBERATION ON THE BILL CLAUSE 16 (3) WHICH SOUGHT ΤΟ PREVENT THE DEFENCE FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE, AFTER THE JURY HAD BEEN EMPANELLED, WHICH WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DEFENCE response, EXCEPT WITH THE LEAVE OF
THE
JUDGE.
THE BAR ASSOCIATION AND THE LAW SOCIETY HAD ARGUED THAT THE CLAUSE WAS UNFAIR. THE GOVERNMENT
SUBSEQUENTLY TO DELETE THE CLAUSE.
4
HAD
15
STRONGLY
AGREED