XN000022-1995-06-07 — Page 28

(c)

18 -

If criminal proceedings were not taken it would not be fair or just to discuss why the accused was suspected and the reasons for not prosecuting. To embark on such a course would, as I just explained, 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.

I hope that members would understand why I, and my predecessors, have taken the stand that I have referred to. I hope that members will, on reflection agree with me to some of that principle. But I also repeat, the stand, the principle that I adopt does not render me unaccountable to this Council. I would wager that I'm probably the Attorney General who has been question more frequently and appeared more often before this Council Panels than any of my distinguished predecessors.

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.

A decision to prosecute will Then, Mr President, there are the courts. 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.

At this point, I would remind members that the proper role of prosecuting counsel is 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. With that caution, I would note that the Division, the Prosecution Division, had the following conviction rates in the past year: 76% in the High Court, 67% in the District Court and 63% in the Magistrates' Court. By way of contrast the Crown Prosecution Service in England had a conviction rate in 1993/94 of about 57%.

Let me say a word about how the Division had staffed and what it does because I think it's important, Mr President, that in this important debate with the emphasis being laid on particular cases in the past we should not lost sight, as I'm sure Members won't, of the broader picture.