XN000022-1987-03-25 — Page 27

-

25

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 1987

HE COULD THEREFORE ONLY SECOND GUESS THE REASON FOR THE ADMINISTRATION NOT TO TAKE ANY ACTION TO REMEDY THE LAW. +1 CAN ONLY MAKE ASSUMPTIONS, I CANNOT VERIFY THEM, + HE ADDED.

MR FORD SAID IT WOULD SEEM THERE WAS LITTLE PRESSURE ON THE ADMINISTRATION TO RAISE THIS +RATHER DELICATE POLITICAL PROBLEM+ AS THE SYSTEM HAD BEEN OPERATING TO THE APPARENT SATISFACTION OF THE PUBLIC AND THE CINEMA-OPERATORS.

HE ADMITTED THIS WAS NOT VERY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION

BUT AT LEAST IT HAD THE MERIT OF BEING HONEST.

HE SAID THE SITUATION HAD CHANGED SINCE 1982.

THE INTRODUCTION OF THE FILM CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM PROPOSED WHICH BEGAN TO TAKE SHAPE WITH THE DISTRICT BOARDS GAVE THE ADMINISTRATION THE GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO REVAMP THE LAW WHICH WAS OUTDATED AND UNSATISFACTORY ON SEVERAL ACCOUNTS, HE ADDED.

MR FORD SAID DETAILS DRAFTING INSTRUCTIONS WERE ISSUED IN MARCH, 1985 AND NO LESS THAN EIGHT DRAFTS OF THE BILL HAD BEEN PRODUCED.

HE ADMITTED DIFFICULTIES WERE ENCOUNTERED OVER THE EXPRESSION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF FILM CENSORSHIP AND THERE WERE INDEED DIFFERENCES WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION AS TO HOW THE PROBLEM SHOULD BE TACKLED.

BUT MR FORD STRESSED THERE WAS NO LACK OF WILL ON THE PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION TO TACKLE THE ISSUE.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DISCRETION IN PROSECUTION EXPLAINED

*****

EVEN IF THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT TENDS TO PROVE THE NECESSARY INGREDIENTS OF AN OFFENCE, A BARE PRIMA FACIE CASE IS, GENERALLY SPEAKING, NOT ENOUGH TO WARRANT A PROSECUTION, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE HON MICHAEL THOMAS, SAID IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY (WEDNESDAY).

P

REPLYING TO A QUESTION BY THE HON STEPHEN CHEONG, MR THOMAS QUOTED THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORDINANCE WHICH STATED THAT +THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL NOT BE BOUND TO PROSECUTE AN ACCUSED PERSON IN ANY CASE IN WHICH HE MAY BE OF OPINION THAT THE INTERESTS OF PUBLIC JUSTICE DO NOT REQUIRE HIS INTERFERENCE+.

/ON FACTORS