Secondly, the Bill deals with the situation where an indictment is quashed by the High Court, for example, where a criminal charge is struck down by the High Court as being defective. At present, the only way to challenge the correctness of the High Court decision is to appeal to the Privy Council. It is considered undesirable to have to appeal directly to the Privy Council in respect of such a decision, when an appeal to the Court of Appeal would be quicker and less costly. It is therefore proposed in clause 9 that the Attorney General should have the power to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a High Court judge's decision to quash an indictment. This would follow the present power of the Attorney General under section 81E of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance to appeal against a decision to discharge an accused person before the trial begins.
Thirdly, clause 11 of the Bill extends the Law Society's right of intervention in respect of a solicitor's practice so as to afford greater protection to a solicitor's clients. This will enable the Law Society to act decisively where urgent action is needed, particularly in cases of dishonesty, undue delay and failure to comply with the accounts rules.
Law relating to Press Freedom
The Bill also contains reforms to the law relating to press freedom. The Bill proposes to remove three unnecessary restrictions on the press and is further proof of the Government's commitment to the freedom of the press.
At present, section 6 of the Defamation Ordinance provides that any person who maliciously publishes a defamatory libel shall be liable to imprisonment for 1 year and to pay such fine as the court may award. The offence does not require proof of an intention to defame nor is truth in itself a defence. The criminal law should not be used to protect reputations except from the most serious and flagrant attacks. Section 5 of the Defamation Ordinance already provides that a person who publishes any defamatory libel knowing it to be false shall be liable to imprisonment for 2 years. This is sufficient by itself and it is proposed that section 6 should be repealed, by clause 5 of the Bill.
The Bill also proposes in clause 6, to repeal section 3(1)(a) of the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Ordinance which makes it an offence to print or publish, in relation to any judicial proceedings, 'any indecent matter or any medical, surgical or physiological details which are of a revolting or offensive nature or the publication of which would be calculated to injure public morals'. This is considered to be an unnecessary restriction on the freedom of the press.
Page 30Page 31