द
이
81
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CHAMBERS
HONG KONG
9th October, 1969.
W. S. Carter, Esq., C.V.O.,
Hong Kong Department,
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, King Charles Street,
LONDON, S.W.1.
Dear Bunny,
17. Campanan
Many thanks for your letter HKK 14/38 of 2nd October, 1969 with the information about the Criminal Law Revision Committee's probable recommendations on abolishing the right of an accused to make an unsworn statement.
I see the logic of your argument that it should be generally abolished and not merely removed in some kinds of case. On the other hand, tactically our best chance of getting it removed for all cases may be to take it away from some, on the thin-end-of-the-wedge prin- ciple.
We are amending the Bill in the light of public criticisms and comments and of the helpful views of yourself and the legal advisers. We hope to take a revised Bill to Ex. Co. in November and, if they approve it, to send a copy to H.E. while he is on leave, so that he can discuss it in the F.C.O. in December if he so wishes.
A despatch is being drafted to reply to your despatch 663 of 25th November, 1968 and should reach you fairly soon. As agreed,
we shall only deal with a few points and not with all the matters raised therein.
1x
K.271
PL. fuck on HCK, 14/53
with coking for (x
sen
ceverly
ANS
(D.T. Roberts) Attorney General.
69.
14.
ADCSIVED I
LAST
14 OCT 1967
REF.
(20
HEX
HKK 14/08
REF.
22
سیما
1,69
14.10.69.
Page
Page
HKK 14/38
Hong Kong Department
20
2 October, 1969
You will recall that during your discussions on 8 September with the Legal Advisers and ourselves about the Prévention of Bribery Bill, you raised a point on Clause 25 of the Bill relating to the right of an accused person to make an unsworn statement from the dock.
We have now learned from the Home Office that the Criminal Law Revision Committee, who are reviewing the law of criminal evidence in this country, do propose to recommend that the right of an accused person to make such a statement (as distinct from his right, if unrepresented, to address the Court in his own defence) should be abolished. Last year the Committee circularised the legal professi about the recommendations which they were considering making on thie and other matters and most of those circularised agreed with this particular proposal. It seems likely that the Committee will recommend accordingly although this cannot be regarded as certain until they present their report (which it is hoped will be within. the coming twelve months). The Committee's competence is limited to the law of England and Wales.
We would see no objection to this change being introduced in Hong Kong at the same time that it is introduced in this country. But we adhere to the view that if any such change is introduced, it should be of general application and should not be limited to person accused of certain offences involving corruption by public servants.
You may find it useful to have the enclosed copy of a rough record which we took of our discussions with you. You already have a copy of Arthur Grattan-Bellew's minute of 20 August to which the record refers.
}
On quite another matter, can you give us any indication of the state of play on the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinanc following your discussions with Arthur' Grattan-Bellew and ourselves on 13 August? We still await an official reply to our Saving Despatch No.663 of 25 Novembar, 1968 although I appreciate that ther has since been a certain amount of semi-official correspondence on the subject.
LAF
REC.
GG
Rr.
21
(w. S. Carter)
The Honourable D. T. E. Roberts, OBE., QC.,
HONG KONG
CONFIDENTIAL
30
睨
15/20
zel
101
69
سیما
age 9
age 9
Page
Unded 029%
bu, 30.8.69. ви
ANG
nter 14.2.69.
nhel
bh 12.9.69 ANGA
29.8.64
30.9.69.
Mi
67/7769.
Mr. Gaminara
ge 10
Reference...
HKK 14/9
19)
You and I discussed this afternoon with Mr. Denys Roberts the Hong Kong Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance and the comments made on that Ordinance in our Saving despatch HKK 14/9 (1).
2. Mr. Roberts agreed that this Ordinance should be amended so that where the public were excluded from the court, or a case is heard in camera, there would be a requirement for the decision on the case to be given in open court.
This new provision is to cover both section 122 and section 123. Mr. Roberts also agreed that the amending Ordinance should delete the words "or may be" in section 123(1)(a).
3. Mr. Roberts said that the Government of Hong Kong were opposed to amending the Ordinance so that these two new sections would not be a part of the substantive law but would only be brought into force by Order of the Governor at a request by the Chief Justice.
4. It was agreed that the Hong Kong Government should send a formal reply to the Saving Despatch at (1) agreeing to bring in an amending Ordinance to make the amendments referred to above and giving their reasons for objecting to an amendment which would have the effect of removing the two new sections from the substantive law of the Colony.
a.f. fratten. Beller/
(A. Grattan-Bellew) 13 August, 1969
Page
ge 10
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.