XN000022-1984-11-21 — Page 19

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1984

17

THE JUDGES HAD THEN SUGGESTED THAT SWIFT ACTION MIGHT BE CONSIDERED TO AMEND THE MAGISTRATES ORDINANCE TO GIVE LEGISLATIVE SANCTION TO THE ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE.

THE MAGISTRATES (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1984 THUS SOUGHT TO AMEND THE LAW SO THAT THE COMMON-SENSE APPROACH MIGHT BE ADOPTED, MR MATHEWS SAID.

A CLAUSE 3 OF THE BILL APPLIED THE NEW PROCEDURE TO EXISTING PROCEEDINGS AND THUS HAD AN ELEMENT OF RETROACTIVE EFFECT, HE SAID.

MR MATHEWS SAID THAT RETROACTION IN LEGISLATION SHOULD USUALLY BE AVOIDED TO PRESERVE VESTED RIGHTS, BUT IN THE CASE OF THIS BILL, HOWEVER, THERE WAS ONLY ONE CASE PROCEEDING TO WHICH THE NEW PROCEDURE COULD APPLY.

+AND ALL THE COUNSEL IN THAT CASE HAVE AGREED THAT THE PROPOSED PROCEDURE WOULD NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY PREJUDICE,+ HE SAID.

IT WAS IN EVERYONE'S INTEREST THAT THE LENGTH OF PRELIMINARY INQUIRIES SHOULD BE REDUCED AS MUCH AS WAS CONSISTENT WITH JUSTICE, HE SAID.

SUPPORTING THE BILL, UNOFFICIAL MEMBER THE HON. PETER C. WONG AGREED THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO HAVE THE NEW PROCEDURE.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD, HE SAID, MADE OUT A STRONG CASE FOR THE AMENDMENT.

HE NOTED. HOWEVER. THAT UNOFFICIAL MEMBERS HAD BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT THE RETROSPECTIVE ELEMENT OF CLAUSE 3 AS WELL AS THE POSITION OF AN UNREPRESENTED ACCUSED WHO MIGHT REQUIRE HELP IN READING THE TRANSCRIPT.

BUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD GIVEN ASSURANCES THAT ALL COUNSEL IN THE PRESENT CASE HAD STATED IN OPEN COURT THAT THEY WOULD WELCOME THE PROCEDURE, AND THAT ASSISTANCE WOULD BE GIVEN TO ACCUSED PERSONS IN READING THE TRANSCRIPTS.

REFERRING TO THE PROCEDURE OF TAKING THE BILL THROUGH ALL THREE STAGES IN ONE SITTING, HE SAID THAT THIS MEASURE SHOULD BE USED ONLY VERY SPARINGLY+.

BUT UNOFFICIAL MEMBERS HAD BEEN SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS MERIT IN THE PRESENT CASE AND HAD GIVEN IT THEIR SUPPORT, HE SAID.

/18