XN000022-1995-07-19 — Page 72

47 -

Clause 2 of the Bill seeks to modernise the law of evidence in relation to child witnesses by repealing the existing Section 3(a) so that every child witness, in particular an abused child, and without being emotive about it. I would remind Members that these two Bills are designed generally for the protection of vulnerable witnesses, and in particular children who have been abused, so that every child witness, in particular an abused child, will not be intimidated or discouraged from giving evidence by having to go through a test of competency at the outset. The proposed change in no way affects the inherent power of the court to decide on the competency of any witness at any stage of the witness' evidence, be that witness a child or an adult. If a child is available to give relevant and understandable evidence, then the child should be heard. The court will then evaluate that evidence and decide how much reliance to place upon it.

The other rule of evidence concerning child witnesses which is Clause 3 of this Bill also seeks to abolish the rule of corroboration. Under the existing law, a child who understands the duty of speaking the truth but who does not understand the nature of the oath may only give unsworn evidence which, without corroboration, is not sufficient to convict a defendant. Put in other way, if a child gives unsworn evidence, his evidence must be supported by some other admissible independent evidence before the defendant can be convicted of the offence. Very often, when a child is abused by a defendant, there would be no other persons present at the scene and as a result, no other independent evidence may be produced in court. If the child is of tender age, he can only give unsworn evidence. Despite the fact that the child alone can give a reliable account of the incident, his or her evidence will not be sufficient to convict the offender for want of corroboration. This rule has been described by one judge as a "child molester's charter".

Before the rule of corroboration was abolished in England, a Home Office report had suggested that there was no compelling scientific evidence in support of the view that a child's testimony is inherently unreliable. It was also found that children were as good witnesses as adults. The same finding was made by the Committee on the Evidence of Children in Criminal Proceedings. Mr President, these proposals have been carefully thought out based on the recommendations of the Committee on the Evidence of Children in Criminal Proceedings, the Committee had included members of the Law Society and the Bar Association. The rules and the Evidence Ordinance are an essential part of a package, brought forward to deal with the problem of vulnerable witnesses. And I urge Members to support the retention of Clause 2 of the Evidence Bill, which seeks to amend Section 3A of the Evidence Ordinance.