XN000022-1995-04-19 — Page 30

+

-

15.

These problems were addressed by way of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill 1995 and the Evidence (Amendment) Bill 1995, he said.

The amendments proposed by the two bills were based on the recommendations made by Committee on the Evidence of Children in Criminal Proceedings; the working party appointed by Chief Justice and chaired by Mr Justice Wong to study mentally handicapped people giving evidence in court and the Fight Crime Committee.

Mr Mathews said that the purpose of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill was to provide greater protection for vulnerable witnesses when giving evidence in criminal courts, by introducing four new procedures.

The first procedure, he said, would enable vulnerable witnesses, with the leave of the court, to give evidence at trial in a room separate from the court room through a live television link.

This would allay their anxiety arising from giving evidence in court and child victims, in particular, would be spared the trauma of being close to the alleged abuser again, he said.

Mr Mathews said: "Secondly, interviews with children and mentally handicapped witnesses can be conducted and video recorded in informal surroundings.

"The video recording can later be accepted as evidence in court. This will mean that the witness will not have to repeat the ordeal of describing the incident," he said.

"A third procedure will prevent child or mentally handicapped witnesses from being required to give evidence in court twice in relation to serious abuses once at the committal proceedings and again at the trial.

"Committal proceedings will not be needed when the prosecution issues a "notice of transfer" certifying that the evidence is sufficient for the accused to be committed for trial," he said.

"In cases where it was unavoidable that a trial could be heard without delay, or where exposure to a full trial would endanger the physical or mental health of the child or mentally handicapped witness, a written deposition taken by a magistrate could be admissible as evidence without further proof," Mr Mathews said.

Mr Mathews also emphasised the introduction of the new procedures would not prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial.

Page 30Page 31