XN000022-1993-07-21 — Page 19

WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 1993

11

DELAY IN HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE FULLY EXPLAINED

IN

THE JUDGE ORDERED A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A DEFENDANT THE HIGH COURT CRIMINAL CASE 122 OF 1992 AFTER LOOKING AT THE WHOLE CASE IN THE ROUND, AND NOT ON THE GROUND OF DELAY ALONE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE HON JEREMY MATHEWS, SAID.

IN THE

IN HIS REPLY TO A QUESTION BY DR THE HON HUANG CHEN-YA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, MR MATHEWS SAID IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL то MEMBERS IF HE SET OUT THE BACKGROUND OF CASE.

THE DEFENDANT IN THE CASE REFERRED TO WAS CHARGED WITH 13 COUNTS OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT OFFENCES AGAINST THE THEFT ORDINANCE, AND ONE COUNT OF CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE COMMISSIONER OF BANKING.

THESE CHARGES, WHICH INVOLVED A BANK, COVERED THE PERIOD BETWEEN DECEMBER 1983 AND NOVEMBER 1985.

IN EARLY 1985, PROBLEMS IN THE BANK CAME TO THE ATTENTION OF THE THEN COMMISSIONER OF BANKING, WHO CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO IRREGULARITIES INTO SOME OF THE BANK'S TRANSACTIONS.

THE COMMISSIONER REFERRED THE CASE TO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT IN JANUARY 1986.

THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST

INVESTIGATION THAT MONTH.

CORRUPTION STARTED AN

HOWEVER, OF PARAMOUNT AND OVERRIDING IMPORTANCE WAS THE INTERESTS OF DEPOSITORS AND SHAREHOLDERS, WHO WOULD SUFFER IF IT BECAME KNOWN PREMATURELY THAT THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION IN PROGRESS.

THUS THE INVESTIGATION WAS COVERT

THAN IF IT HAD BEEN UNDERTAKEN OPENLY.

AND. OF NECESSITY, SLOWER

CHARGES WERE EVENTUALLY LAID AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IN OCTOBER 1988. A RETURN DATE WAS FIXED FOR A COMMITTAL HEARING IN JANUARY 1990.

HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANT THEN MADE VARIOUS APPLICATIONS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE HIGH COURT, WHICH LED TO APPEALS TO THE COURT OF APPEAL AND THE PRIVY COUNCIL.

AND APPEALS

(ALL

AS A RESULT OF THE DEFENDANT'S APPLICATIONS OF WHICH WERE ULTIMATELY UNSUCCESSFUL), THE COMMITTAL FOR TRIAL WAS DELAYED FOR OVER TWO YEARS UNTIL APRIL 1992.

AN INDICTMENT WAS FILED LATER THAT MONTH AND THE TRIAL WAS EVENTUALLY SET FOR APRIL 1993.

IN JANUARY THIS YEAR THE DEFENDANT MADE AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE TRIAL JUDGE FOR A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS THAT A TRIAL WOULD CONSTITUTE AN ABUSE OF PROCESS AND THAT THERE HAD BERN A DEPRIVATION OF HIS RIGHT TO A TRIAL. WITHOUT UNDUE DELAY UNDER THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

/THE DEFENDANT