XN000022-1979-01-24 — Page 8

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1979

6

LASTLY, MR. LO SAID, HE AND HIS UNOFFICIAL COLLEAGUES WERE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRESENT ORDER OF DELAYS BEFORE AN ACCUSED WAS BROUGHT TO TRIAL.

DELAY INEVITABLY HAD SOME BEARING ON A COURT'S EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION ON BAIL.

ALTHOUGH THEY WERE GIVEN TO UNDERSTAND THAT IN THIS RESPECT HONG KONG COMPARES REASONABLY WELL WITH COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS ELSEWHERE, THEY THOUGHT THERE WAS NO CAUSE FOR COMPLACENCY AND THAT THERE WAS A REAL NEED FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SEE WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE TO EXPEDITE THE DISPENSATION OF JUSTICE.

AND

MR. LO SAID BAIL HAD LONG BEEN A SUBJECT OF CONTROVERSY. THE BILL HAD AROUSED CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC INTEREST, PARTICULARLY AMONG THE LEGAL PROFESSION.

IN REPLY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE HON, JOHN HOBLEY CONFIRMED THAT DECISIONS TO SEEK A REVIEW OF A DECISION OF A MAGISTRATE OR DISTRICT JUDGE TO GRANT BAIL WOULD BE TAKEN ONLY BY THE LAW OFFICERS OR THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.

MR. HOBLEY ALSO CONFIRMED THAT HE WOULD BE MOVING AN AMENDMENT IN COMMITTEE TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE VERY FAIR PROPOSAL OF UNOFFICIAL MEMBERS THAT THE JUDGE HEARING AN APPLICATION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR A REVIEW OF A DECISION TO GRANT BAIL SHOULD HAVE POWER TO AWARD COSTS AGAINST THE CROWN.

ON TRIAL DELAYS, MR HOBLEY SAID IT WAS ONE WHICH CONSTANTLY EXERCISED THE MINDS OF BOTH THOSE WHO WERE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND CONCERNED ONLOOKERS.

+IT IS, HOWEVER, RIGHT TO SAY THAT VIEWS AS TO WHAT IS A REASONABLY ACCEPTABLE INTERVAL BETWEEN ARREST AND TRIAL DIFFER CONSIDERABLY, HE SAID.

+THREE NEW POSTS OF HIGH COURT JUDGE WERE APPROVED QUITE RECENTLY BY THE FINANCE COMMITTEE OF THIS COUNCIL AND THIS IS BUT ONE EXAMPLE OF THE CONTINUING REVIEW OF THE STATE OF JUDICIAL BUSINESS.

+MEMBERS MAY FEEL SURE THAT THE MATTER IS CLOSELY MONITORED AT ALL TIMES,+ MR HOBLEY ADDED.

THE BILL WAS LATER PASSED INTO LAW.

17

-