HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15th November 1967. 475
I should also like to make it clear, to those who might feel that other opinions should have been sought before its introduction, that the entire Bill has been referred to the Secretary of State on two separate occasions in the past two years and has been approved by him in its present form.
To say that the principles of the Bill have received long and careful thought, however, does not necessarily mean that it is free from imper- fections of drafting.
I have seen a short report of remarks which are attributed to a spokesman for the Reform Club. As no representations about the Bill have been received from this body by the Government, I must assume that the report is accurate and represents its considered views.
This spokesman asserts that the Bill will catch small fishes in its net and leave gaping holes through which big fish can escape. If this is so, and the drafting is unsatisfactory, it is a pity that the spokesman, instead of confining himself to generalities, did not specify the provisions which justified his assertion.
He is reported to have said that the Bill makes every peace loving resident of Hong Kong a potential criminal. In one sense, of course, this is an unchallengeable statement, since every resident of Hong Kong, peace loving or otherwise, is potentially an offender under every law. which creates any criminal offence.
The Reform Club spokesman appears to rest his main objection to the Bill on the contention that people who can afford a lawyer need not fear the Bill, but that innocent persons who were charged with offences against it would be in grave danger of conviction, if they were undefended. Nobody, I suggest, with the least experience of the working of our criminal courts, could seriously assert that the unrepresented accused stands in jeopardy in a way which he would not if he were defended.
It is part of the tradition of our courts, and one which judges and magistrates go to very great pains to maintain, that no accused shall suffer because he cannot afford the services of a solicitor or counsel, and I have no hesitation in refuting any suggestion to the contrary.
One local organization has expressed in a letter to the press its interest in the Bill and its intention to make representations about it. The Government does not feel, however, that the possibility that such representations may be made is a sufficient reason for postponing a Bill which was first published nearly six weeks ago, which is surely an adequate time within which members of the public or interested bodies could make their submissions. This does not mean, of course, that any representation which may be made in the future by this, or any other, reputable organization will not be fully and carefully considered.
Page 15Page 16
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.