XN000022-1995-06-07 — Page 20

- 10 -

He repeated the three reasons he gave earlier to the Council in explaining why decisions to prosecute or not to prosecute should not be discussed:

If the defendant has been prosecuted but acquitted, it cannot be in the interests of justice and fairness for that acquittal or its reasons to be debated in public.

If the defendant has been prosecuted and convicted, it would hardly be proper to discuss whether the conviction was correct or not. If the defendant felt he should not be convicted, he would appeal.

If criminal proceedings were not taken it would not be fair or just to discuss why the accused were suspected and the reasons for not prosecuting. To embark on such a course would be tantamount to a trial but it would not be in accordance with court procedures and it would not be confined to evidence admissible in court.

Nevertheless, he also repeated that the stand he took did not render him unaccountable to the Council.

"Further safe-guards and checks arise through the detailed work of the Legislative Council Panel on the Administration of Justice and Legal Services, before whom I and the Director frequently appear. The media, too, have a part to play in raising public concerns over particular decisions," he said.

"Then there are the courts. A decision to prosecute will frequently result in a trial, where the case against the defendant is tested by the defendant's lawyers, by the judge and, in the High Court, by the jury.

"But an acquittal does not mean that the original decision to prosecute was wrong, for the decision to prosecute is based on a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction, while a conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.

"There are many and varying reasons why a defendant may be acquitted: witnesses may die or change their stories, or simply not be believed. New evidence may come to light," he said.

Mr Mathews reminded the Council that the proper role of prosecuting counsel was not to secure a conviction at any cost, but to lay out the evidence fairly and impartially for the court, or the jury, to decide guilt or innocence.

Page 20Page 21