WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1990
CLAUSE 3 ENABLED THE PROSECUTION TO ADD FURTHER COUNTS ΤΟ AN INDICTMENT AFTER COMMITTAL FOR TRIAL BY A MAGISTRATE EVEN THOUGH THE NEW CHARGES WERE NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS SO LONG AS THOSE NEW OFFENCES WERE DISCLOSED IN THE PAPERS USED IN THE COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS, HE SAID.
CLAUSES 4 AND 6 REMOVED REFERENCES то THE "SESSIONS" JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT BECAUSE NO CRIMINAL COURT IN HONG KONG SAT IN "SESSIONS"
CLAUSE 5 REPEALED IN ITS ENTIRETY SECTION 67 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORDINANCE. THIS SECTION CONTAINED SPECIAL MEASURES TO DEAL WITH CASES OF LARCENY, EMBEZZLEMENT AND OTHER COMMON LAW OFFENCES OF DISHONESTY, THESE OLD COMMON LAW OFFENCES WERE ABOLISHED IN 1970 BY
THE THEFT ORDINANCE AND THE SECTION NO LONGER SERVED ANY FUNCTION.
MR MATHEWS SAID CLAUSE 7 AMENDED SECTION 109AA OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORDINANCE WHICH DEALT WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN SUPERVISION ORDERS WERE MADE IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF YOUNG PRISONERS. THE AMENDMENT REMOVED THE REQUIREMENT TO MAKE AN "AFTERCARE" ORDER IN RESPECT OF A PERSON WHO WAS TO BE REMOVED OR DEPORTED FROM HONG KONG AS IT WAS POINTLESS MAKING SUCH AN ORDER IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
CLAUSE B AMENDED SECTION 80B(2)(B) OF THE MAGISTRATES ORDINANCE. THE SECTION REQUIRED ALL STATEMENTS USED IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS TO BE SIGNED BY THE MAKER WITH AN ENDORSEMENT ΤΟ THE EFFECT THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT MAKING A STATEMENT WHICH THEY KNEW TO BE FALSE OR DID NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE WAS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 33 OF THE CRIMES ORDINANCE.
SECTION 33 OF THE CRIMES ORDINANCE PROHIBITED THE MAKING OF FALSE STATEMENTS WHICH WERE USED IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS OR WHICH WERE AGREED BY THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENCE, MR MATHEWS SAID.
HOWEVER. VERY FEW STATEMENTS TAKEN BY THE POLICE ENDED UP AS BEING USED IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS OR WERE AGREED IN EVIDENCE. MOST WERE USED FOR OPERATIONAL PURPOSES OR FORMED THE BASIS OF PROSECUTIONS BEFORE A MAGISTRATE OR IN THE DISTRICT COURT.
THAT THE CAPABLE OF
MR MATHEWS SAID 1T WAS DECIDED, THEREFORE, ENDORSEMENT SHOULD BE BROADENED IN ITS TERMS SO AS TO BE APPLICATION TO ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. IT WAS PROPOSED THAT THE MAKER OF A STATEMENT WOULD BE ASKED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MAKING A STATEMENT WHICH HE KNEW TO BE FALSE OR DID NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE MIGHT RENDER HIM LIABLE TO PROSECUTION FOR A CRIMINAL OFFENCE.
MR MATHEWS SAID CLAUSES 9 AND 10 OF THE BILL EXTENDED ALIBI PROVISIONS TO ACCUSED PERSONS WHO WERE TRIED IN THE DISTRICT COURT.
THIS BROUGHT THE PRACTICE OF THE DISTRICT COURT INTO LINE WITH THAT OF THE HIGH COURT WHERE, SINCE 1971, AN ACCUSED PERSON WHO WISHED TO USE THE DEFENCE OF ALIB1 WAS OBLIGED TO GIVE NOTICE OF THAT FACT TO THE PROSECUTION SO THAT THE PARTICULARS OF THE ALIBI COULD BE CHECKED.
/IF ENQUIRIES