CO129-265 - Public Offices & Others - 1894 — Page 640

632

to the Supreme Court for trial (see Gazette). By a return which I obtained I then found that the power of giving sentence summarily to an extent exceeding 6 months imprisonment was very largely resorted to In one case which I happened at about the same time to see reported in a local newspaper 7 men were sentenced each to a year's imprisonment for a robbery alleged to have been committed the night before. I obtained the record of the proceedings from the Colonial Secretary and it disclosed a very inadequate enquiry in the face of a plea of not guilty. The Attorney General was however able to set aside the proceedings and the men were subsequently prosecuted to conviction

ad the Supreme Court.

I wrote twice to the Governor pointing out what I thought the danger of the alteration and the

way in which it had been effected and suggesting that

the limit should be brought back to 6 months unless

the accused pleaded guilty. He stated however that he could not adopt my suggestion.

I do not know upon what grounds the exten-

sion of the jurisdiction is supported. A wide summary

jurisdiction is no doubt desirable in Hong Kong but

the 6 months limit was already a very wide one applied

as it was to most of the ordinary crimes.

By limiting the number of cases sent for trial to the Supreme Court a great deal of trouble is

saved to Police, Crown Law Officers, Jurors and Judges

but this is not in my opinion of any public advantage.

It