XN000022-1995-05-10 — Page 27

On the reforms in respect of press freedom, Mr Mathews said the Bill proposed to remove three unnecessary restrictions on the press and was further proof of the Government's commitment to freedom of the press.

He said: "At present, section 6 of the Defamation Ordinance provides that any person who maliciously publishes a defamatory libel shall be liable to imprisonment for 1 year and to pay such fine as the court may award.

"The offence does not require proof of an intention to defame nor is truth in itself a defence. The criminal law should not be used to protect reputations except from the most serious and flagrant attacks," Mr Mathews said.

"Section 5 of the Defamation Ordinance already provides that a person who publishes any defamatory libel knowing it to be false shall be liable to imprisonment for 2 years. This is sufficient by itself and it is proposed that section 6 should be repealed," he noted.

Mr Mathews said the Bill also proposed to repeal section 3(1)(a) of the Judicial Proceedings (Regulation of Reports) Ordinance which made it an offence to print or publish, in relation to any judicial proceedings, 'any indecent matter or any medical, surgical or physiological details which are of a revolting or offensive nature or the publication of which would be calculated to injure public morals'.

A further liberalisation of the law affecting the press, Mr Mathews said, was found in an amendment to the Complex Commercial Crimes Ordinance. The amendment proposed that publication of reports of a preparatory hearing of a serious and complex commercial crime case, which was now prohibited indefinitely, should be allowed after the case had been concluded.

Mr Mathews noted that another important aspect of the Bill was the repeal or amendment of certain provisions which were inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.

One example, he said, related to section 17 of the Summary Offences Ordinance which made it an offence for a person to be in possession of certain things, including an offensive weapon, 'with intent to use the same for any unlawful purpose, or being unable to give satisfactory account of his possession thereof.

The Attorney General said: "In 1994, the Court of Appeal decided that the words 'or being unable to give satisfactory account of his possession thereof were inconsistent with the presumption of innocence in article 11 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance, and had therefore been repealed.