7
THURSDAY, JULY 28, 1994
THESE RULES HAVE BEEN THE BASIS OF HONG KONG-U.S. TRADE IN THE RELEVANT PRODUCTS OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS, AND THE BASIS OF TWO SUCCESSIVE BILATERAL TEXTILE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN HONG KONG AND THE U.S.
BOTH THE 1986 PROTOCOL OF EXTENSION OF THE MULTI-FIBRE ARRANGEMENT AND THE URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENT ON TEXTILE AND CLOTHING PROVIDE FOR CONSULTATIONS AND EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENTS IN THE EVENT OF CHANGES WHICH AFFECT THE ABILITY OF A PARTICIPANT TO BENEFIT FULLY FROM A BILATERAL AGREEMENT OR DISRUPT TRADE.
-
NO NECESSARY FOUNDATION FOR REVIEW
OF SENTENCE IN MANSLAUGHTER CASE
IN RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS CALLING FOR A REVIEW OF SENTENCE IN RESPECT OF A CASE IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED TO SIX YEARS' IMPRISONMENT FOR MANSLAUGHTER, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS DECIDED THAT THE NECESSARY FOUNDATION DOES NOT EXIST TO ENABLE HIM TO SEEK REVIEW OF THE SENTENCE IMPOSED, A LEGAL DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN SAID TODAY (THURSDAY).
WHILE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD THE GREATEST POSSIBLE SYMPATHY FOR THE FAMILY OF THE VICTIM IN THE CASE OVER THE TRAGIC BEREAVEMENT THEY HAD SUFFERED, THE SPOKESMAN STRESSED THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DECISION HAD ONLY BEEN REACHED AFTER THE MOST CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AND A FULL EXAMINATION OF THE CASE.
HE EXPLAINED THAT THE DEFENDANT IN THE CASE WAS NOT CONVICTED
OF MURDER, BUT OF THE LESSER OFFENCE OF MANSLAUGHTER.
HE SAID: "THE JURY, BY THEIR VERDICT, EXPRESSLY FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO KILL, AND THUS NO PREMEDITATION.
"THAT WAS THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION WITH WHICH THE JUDGE WAS CONFRONTED, AND IT WAS AGAINST THAT BACKGROUND THAT THE JUDGE PASSED A SENTENCE OF SIX YEARS' IMPRISONMENT," HE SAID. ·
"IN SENTENCING THE DEFENDANT, THE JUDGE COULD NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT WAS DONE TO THE BODY AFTER DEATH; THAT WAS NOT PUNISHABLE IN LAW," HE STRESSED.
THE SPOKESMAN ALSO NOTED THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL KAS SATISFIED THAT THE JUDGE, IN ARRIVING AT THE SENTENCE HE DID, WAS FULLY AWARE OF ALL THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES.
THE TRAGIC CASE TURNED ON ITS OWN FACTS, AS DID MOST MANSLAUGHTER CASES, AND IT SET NO PRECEDENT FOR THE FUTURE, HE ADDED.
THE SPOKESMAN ALSO POINTED OUT THAT SENTENCING WAS A FUNCTION OF THE INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY AND THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD ONLY SEEK A REVIEW OF SENTENCE IF THAT SENTENCE WAS MANIFESTLY INADEQUATE OR WRONG IN PRINCIPLE.
IT
WAS CLEAR THAT THE SENTENCE IMPOSED IN THE CASE WAS WITHIN THE PROPER RANGE FOR A CASE OF THIS TYPE, HE NOTED.
/8