CO129-262 - Governor Sir Robinson Acting Governor O-Brien - 1894 [1-4] — Page 541

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

Reasons.

By The Jury Consolidation Ordinance, 1887, a distinction was made between Civil and Criminal Cases. Actual Service was required in Civil cases to exempt jurors, who were summoned, from further service during the current year until all the other names in the Ballot Box had been exhausted; whereas, in Criminal Cases, summons without actual service procured such exemption. It followed that some jurors might have to serve two or three times in a year, while others, although summoned, were not called upon to serve at all. Section 3 abolishes this distinction with a view to preventing such inequalities.

Sections 4 and 5 require, in Criminal Cases, the assent of not less than five jurors to the verdict. Hitherto, a majority of four to three could return a binding verdict not only in Civil but in Criminal Cases also. This change is thought desirable in Criminal cases. In capital cases, however, a unanimous verdict is still required.

Section 6 supplies the omission of previous Ordinances to specify the number of jurors to be drawn to form a panel where the jury consists of three, in cases within the Supreme Court's Summary Jurisdiction.

(Signed) W. Meigh Goodman
Attorney General.

536

April

Edit History

2026-05-27 10:28:52 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

Reasons. By The Jury Consolidation Ordinance, 1887, a distinction was made between Civil and Criminal Cases. Actual Service was required in Civil cases to exempt jurors, who were summoned, from further service during the current year until all the other names in the Ballot Box had been exhausted; whereas, in Criminal Cases, summons without actual service procured such exemption. It followed that some jurors might have to serve two or three times in a year, while others, although summoned, were not called upon to serve at all. Section 3 abolishes this distinction with a view to preventing such inequalities. Sections 4 and 5 require, in Criminal Cases, the assent of not less than five jurors to the verdict. Hitherto, a majority of four to three could return a binding verdict not only in Civil but in Criminal Cases also. This change is thought desirable in Criminal cases. In capital cases, however, a unanimous verdict is still required. Section 6 supplies the omission of previous Ordinances to specify the number of jurors to be drawn to form a panel where the jury consists of three, in cases within the Supreme Court's Summary Jurisdiction. (Signed) W. Meigh Goodman Attorney General. 1 536 April

Baseline (Original)

Reasons. By The Jury Consolidation Ordinance, 1887, a distinc- tion was made between Civil and Criminal Cases. Actual Service was required in Civil cases to exempt jurors, who were summoned, from further service during the current year until all the other names in the Ballot Box had been exhausted; whereas, in Criminal Cases, summons without actual service procured such exemption. It followed that some jurors might have to serve two or three times in a year, while others, although summoned, were not called upon to serve at all. Section 3 abolishes this distinction with a view of preventing such inequalities. Sections 4 and 5 require, in Criminal Cases, the assent of not less than five jurors to the verdict. Hitherto, a majority of four to three could returu a binding verdiet not only in Civil but in Criminal Cases also. This change is thought desirable in Criminal cases. In capital cases, however, a unanimous verdict is still required. Section 6 supplies the omission of previous Ordinances to specify the number of jurors to be drawn to form a panel where the jury consists of three, in cases within the Supreme Court's Summary Jurisdiction. (Signed) W. Meigh Goodman Attorney General. 1 536 April

2026-05-27 10:28:52 · Baseline

View content

Reasons.

By The Jury Consolidation Ordinance, 1887, a distinc- tion was made between Civil and Criminal Cases. Actual Service was required in Civil cases to exempt jurors, who were summoned, from further service during the current year until all the other names in the Ballot Box had been exhausted; whereas, in Criminal Cases, summons without actual service procured such exemption. It followed that some jurors might have to serve two or three times in a year, while others, although summoned, were not called upon to serve at all. Section 3 abolishes this distinction with a view of preventing such inequalities.

Sections 4 and 5 require, in Criminal Cases, the assent of not less than five jurors to the verdict. Hitherto, a majority of four to three could returu a binding verdiet not only in Civil but in Criminal Cases also. This change is thought desirable in Criminal cases. In capital cases, however, a unanimous verdict is still required.

(Signed) W. Meigh Goodman

Attorney General.

536

April

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.