XN000022-1987-01-21 — Page 27

25

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1987

+HE AMENDED THE SUMMONS; BUT SUGGESTED TO ME THAT I SHOULD TAKE UP THE MATTER WITH THE BAR COMMITTEE IN ORDER THAT THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL MIGHT BE PERSUADED TO AMEND SECTION 27 SO AS TO GIVE THE MAGISTRATE A DISCRETION IN THE MATTER A DISCRETION WHICH IS GIVEN TO JUDGES IN THE HIGH COURT AND THE DISTRICT COURT,+ MR LEE SAID.

HE THEN TOOK UP THE MATTER WITH THE BAR COMMITTEE, AND THE BAR COMMITTEE TOOK UP THE MATTER WITH THE THEN ATTORNEY-GENERAL. BUT NOTHING HAPPENED.

HE SAID THE MATTER WAS AGAIN TAKEN UP ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS BUT WAS COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN UNTIL HE ASKED HIS QUESTION IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

HE NOTED THAT IT HAD TAKEN THREE ATTORNEYS GENERAL AND AT LEAST 12 YEARS TO PRODUCE THE BILL.

+ AM SURE THE DELAY WAS NOT DELIBERATE ON THE PART OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR HIS PREDECESSORS, ALTHOUGH THE PROSECUTION IN MAGISTRATES' COURTS HAVE HAD A DISTINCT ADVANTAGE SO LONG AS SECTION 27 REMAINS UNCHANGED.+ HE SAID.

+ IT IS BETTER LATE THAN NEVER, HE ADDED.

WINDING UP DEBATE ON THE BILL, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE HON MICHAEL THOMAS, TOOK NOTE OF MA LEE'S COMMENTS, AND OBSERVED THAT AMONG THE HOST OF ISSUES THAT AN ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD TO DEAL WITH SOME, LIKE ELEPHANTS, STOOD OUT MORE THAN OTHERS.

+THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 27 WAS PERHAPS A LESS VISIBLE,

LESS THREATENING ANIMAL,+ HE SAID.

+WHATEVER THE REASONS FOR THE PASSAGE OF TIME IN THIS CASE, MEMBERS MAY FIND IT REASSURING TO DISCOVER THAT EVEN THE LAZIEST RIVER EVENTUALLY FINDS THE SEA.+

#

/26