XN000022-1985-03-13 — Page 15

14

+

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 198L

+1 AM CONFIDENT THAT THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY IS LARGE ENOUGH TO ENABLE ADJUDICATORS TO BE SELECTED WHO HAVE NO PREVIOUS INVOLVEMENT IN THE CASE, HE SAID.

OUTLINING THE MERITS OF THIS PROPOSAL, MR THOMAS SAID IT PROVIDED AN ELEMENT OF LAY PARTICIPATION IN JUSTICE WHICH TRIAL BY JUDGE ALONE DID NOT.

+ IT ALSO ENABLES THE JUDGE TO SHARE WITH THE ADJUDICATORS THE IR SKILL AND EXPERTISE WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE IN A TRIAL BY JURY.

+THE PROPOSAL INDEED HAS ALL THE FEATURES OF A SPECIALIST JURY, AND IN ADDITION GIVES THE LAY ADJUDICATORS DIRECT ACCESS TO THE JUDGE'S GUIDANCE IN ALL MATTERS OF LAW, PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE.

+ IT ALSO HAS THE ADVANTAGE OVER THE SPECIAL JURY THAT ONLY THREE RATHER THAN SEVEN BUSINESSMEN ARE REQUIRED TO DEVOTE THE IR VALUABLE TIME TO ASSISTING IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE,+ MR THOMAS SAID.

REFERRING TO CRITICISMS THAT THE BILL WAS AN ATTACK ON THE JURY, WHICH WAS SEEN AS ONE OF THE BULWARKS OF LIBERTY, MR THOMAS SAID I CANNOT ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS MODEST PROPOSAL TO GIVE THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE POWER TO ORDER THE TRIAL OF COMPLEX COMMERCIAL CRIMES BEFORE A TRIBUNAL MORE SUITABLE FOR THE PURPOSE THAN THE ORDINARY JURY. REPRESENTS A THREAT TO THE TRADITIONAL AND WELL-ESTABLISHED ROLE OF THE JURY.

+WE SHOULD NOT BE CLINGING TO JURY TRIAL FOR ITS OWN SAKE WHERE THE JURY IS NOT THOUGHT SUITABLE.+

IT COULD NOT BE SERIOUSLY REPRESENTED THAT THE FREEDOM OF PEOPLE IN HONG KONG WAS THREATENED BY PERMITTING A NEW MODE OF TRIAL FOR THIS HANDFUL OF COMPLEX CASES.

+ON THE CONTRARY, HE SAID, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE ARE DOING NO MORE THAN ENSURING THAT THE COURTS ARE DEVELOPED TO MEET THE CHANGING NEEDS OF A MORE COMPLEX SOCIETY.

+BY ADAPTING TO CHANGE, PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE LAW AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE WILL SURELY BE ENHANCED, HE SAID.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID THERE HAD BEEN OTHER MODIFICATIONS TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSALS.

WHERE BOTH PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENCE AGREED THAT THE CASE WAS SUITABLE FOR TRIAL BY ADJUDICATORS, THE BILL AVOIDED THE NEED FOR A REFERENCE TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

THERE WERE SOME WHO THOUGHT THAT THE PROVISION FOR A JUDGE SITTING WITH TWO COMMERCIAL ADJUDICATORS REACHING A UNANIMOUS VERDICT WAS UNSATISFACTORY BECAUSE A SINGLE ADJUDICATOR COULD EASILY FRUSTRATE A LONG AND EXPENSIVE TRIAL.

/+I AGREE