سيط
South China Morning Post, 26th September,
1968.
10/1
Amendment to Bill
limits court powers
to sit
in camera
The Hon D. T. E. Roberts, QC, the Attorney General, at Legislative Council yesterday, moved the deletion of the phrase "or for any other reason" from paragraph (a) of the new section 123 (1) of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (No 2) Bill 1968, saying that its removal would- limit the powers of a court to sit in camera to the circumstances listed in paragraph (a).·
He said objection had been raised that the word- ing in its original form mede the special circumstances listed in that paragraph meaningless and conferred an unfettered discretion on a court to hear criminal pro- ceedings in camera in any circumstances whatsoever.
Mr Roberts said that section 122 of the Bill did not entitle a court to sit in camera.
"Although the public can be excluded under its provisions, the press cannot, and proceed- continue with full ings will
publicity," he said.
in
On the other hand, section 123
for sittings did provide camera.
"I would, however, like to point out that there is nothing original in this provision. The position under the section, if it is amended in the manner which I shall propose, will not be very at common different from that law, by which a criminal court in England has inherent power to sit in camera if it con- siders that the administration of justice so requires.”
an
Mr Roberts said he wanted to mention these two aspects of the Bill which appeared to have misunder- given rise to some standing.
Since the first reading of the a letter Bill, he had received from the Hongkong Bar Associa- tion containing criticisms of some of its provisions. A number of comments on it had also appeared in the press.
He said that these criticisms and comments had been care- fully studied and, as a result of them, and of other opinions which had been expressed, he proposed moving a number of amendments to the Bill at the committee stage.
[The S.C.M. Post legal cor- cri- Tuesday respondent on ticised the provisions in the Bill referring to trials in
camera.
་
He said that the key words of the new section 123 which
"OT for stated
other any reason" meant that any reason
the for closing
court which good to the judge appeared seemed to be sufficient.
In a letter in the corres- pondence columns yesterday, Mr Henry Litton, Secretary of the Hongkong Bar Association, pointed out that his association had made representations to Government concerning the Bill and in particular concern- ing the new section 123 which gave unfettered discretion to the courts to have proceedings conducted in camera.]
Mr Roberts then moved five amendments to clause 2 of the Bill, three of them to the new section 122 and two to the new section 123.
Control
He said that section 122(1) at present provided that where a judge made an order closing a court, members of the public might only be present with the permission of a police officer. It had been represented that this might seem to place the control of the courts and the court buildings in the hands of the police officers, and that this would be undesirable.
It had also been argued that there might be occasions on which the control of members of the public could be more appro- priately carried out by court officials rather than by police officers.
"I shall therefore propose that the word 'police officer' should be deleted from the new section 122(1) and replaced by the words 'public officer acting under his direction'," Mr Roberts said.
He said that these alterations would make it clear that control of courts and court buildings remained solely in the hands of the Judiciary.
Mr
that Roberts said
the
Hongkong Bar Association had asked that it be made clear that members of the Bar and solicitors were exempt from the provisions of section 122.
He said that as he indicated at the first reading of the Bill, in his opinion, subsection (3) was in wide enough terms to ensure that lawyers were not excluded from a court under that section.
However, to remove any pos- sible doubt about it, he moved that the words "or profession" be added after the word "office" in the third line of the new sub- section (3).
Continuing he said: "The Bar Association have also raised an objection to the present wording of paragraph (a) of the new section 123 (1). They have argued that the presence of the words 'or for any other reason' at the end of that paragraph makes the special circumstances listed in that paragraph meaning- less and confers an unfettered discretion on a court to hear criminal proceedings in camera in any circumstances whatsoever.
"I think this is a valid ob- lection and I will therefore propose the deletion of the words 'or for any other reason' from paragraph (a). The moval of the phrase would limit the powers of a court to sit in camera to the circumstances listed in paragraph (a).
re-
"However, it could, be argued that
without this paragraph,
in that phrase, would not be wide enough terms to empower a court to sit in camera if it were satisfied that there was a danger to the safety of persons other than witnesses.
"To ensure that a court should have this power, I pro- pose that the words 'a witness sub- or any other person' be stituted for the words 'any wit- ness or for any other reason"." final The Bill was given its readings and passed into law.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.