XN000022-1988-05-20 — Page 3

N

FRIDAY, MAY 20, 1988

THE

PROVIDES THAT AT THE PREPARATORY HEARING, THE STATEMENT CONTAINING A CASE IS BASED

A CASE

BILL PROSECUTION MAY BE ORDERED TO SERVE CONCISE ACCOUNT OF THE FACTS ON WHICH THE PROSECUTION (A "PROSECUTION CASE STATEMENT").

IN THE DEFENCE MAY

TURN BE

ORDERED TO PRESENT A WRITTEN REPLY INDICATING THE FACTS ON

STATEMENT (A "DEFENCE RESPONSE") IN WHICH IT TAKES ISSUE WITH THE PROSECUTION.

"IT IS HOPED THAT THE NEW PROCEDURES WILL AGREEMENT ON FACTS AND TO A DISTILLATION OF THE ISSUES THE CASE

THE JURY THE LENGTH SHORTENED, THE SPOKESMAN SAID.

PROCEEDS BEFORE

OF

WHITE BILL'S

LEAD то MORE

SO THAT

TRIAL

WHEN CAN BE

DEFINITION OF DEFINITION OF

THE THERE WAS ALSO CRITICISM OF COMPLEX COMMERCIAL CRIME. TO ADDRESS THIS CONCERN, THE WHAT CONSTITUTES A COMPLEX COMMERCIAL CRIME HAS BEEN AMENDED.

GENERAL

UNDER THE WHITE BILL IT WAS PROPOSED THAT THE ATTORNEY

TO EXERCISE HIS DISCRETION

APPLY FOR AN ORDER TRANSFERRING THE

HAVING REGARD TO PROCEEDINGS FROM A MAGISTRATE TO THE HIGH COURT

A SCHEDULE OF OFFENCES, THE EVIDENCE AND GUIDELINES FOR DECIDING THE SERIOUSNESS AND COMPLEXITY OF THE CASE.

THE CRITERIA TO BE USED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WILL NOW BE TO BE THAT THE EVIDENCE OF THE OFFENCE IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL AND "REVEALS A CASE OF FRAUD, OR DISHONESTY IN A COMPLEXITY" THAT IT IS COMMERCIAL CONTEXT, OF SUCH SERIOUSNESS AND APPROPRIATE THAT THE CASE BE SO TRANSFERRED.

DROPPED.

A

THE SCHEDULE OF OFFENCES INCLUDED IN THE WHITE BILL HAS BEEN

A THIRD CHANGE FROM THE WHITE BILL CONCERNS THE POWER TO ORDER PREPARATORY HEARING. WHEREAS A COMPULSORY PREPARATORY HEARING THE PROCEDURE WAS PROPOSED IN THE WHITE BILL, THIS IS NOW SUBJECT TO DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE,

IT WILL BE FOR THE JUDGE TO DECIDE WHETHER, HAVING REGARD TO NATURE OF THE CASE, THERE WOULD BE BENEFIT IN HOLDING A PREPARATORY HEARING BEFORE THE JURY IS EMPANELLED.

THE

HE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RETURN THE CASE TO THE MAGISTRATE IF HE DECIDES NOT TO HOLD A PREPARATORY HEARING. THE CASE WILL PROCEED TO THE HIGH COURT IN THE USUAL WAY.

THE HISTORY OF THE PRESENT BILL DATES BACK TO JULY 1984 WHEN THE THEN ATTORNEY GENERAL, MR MICHAEL THOMAS, QC, SOUGHT PUBLIC COMMENT ON A PROPOSAL FOR REFORM.

/IN MARCH