TNAG-0396-FCO40-442-Problem-of-increase-in-crime-in-Hong-Kong-1983 — Page 24

. JUSTICE (HONG KONG BRANCH)

- 4 -

Tom Sargant, Esq.

30th May, 1973

(v)

(vi)

the same, if not worse delays, occur in the hearing of cases and the giving of verdicts.

our magistrates vary considerably in quality and experience; there is no legal qualification for appointment, as in England.

The Hong Kong Government seeks to justify the amendments by referring to the backlog of criminal cases in the Supreme Court. The backlog is not of such severity as to justify fundamental changes in the system of criminal justice. At the time of writing this letter (22nd May) there are 23 cases awaiting trial by jury in the Supreme Court. On an average of 12 trials completed per month, this means a maximum delay of two months.

To have cases shifted down for summary trial in the District Court is merely to increase the backlog of cases in the District Court. There are at present a total of 52 cases awaiting trial in the District Courts. There are an equal number of District Court and Supreme Court Judges, but the present backlog of cases in the District Court is more than double that of the Supreme Court. It is difficult ot see how the shifting of cases from one forum to another would help to ease the strain as a whole, ;which is the apparent justification for the Bills.

Further, to have more cases shifted down to the magistrates for trial would mean that more cases become inaccessible to legal aid. Only two weeks ago legal aid was extended to criminal cases in the District Court. The Government now wishes to have a substantial number of cases removed from the District Court and to have them tried in the magistrates' courts where legal aid is not available: this is a cynical expression of contempt for basic human rights in Hong Kong.

Despite what is stated in the explanatory memoranda, the Acting Attorney General recently stated on television that the purpose of these proposed changes was to reduce the time spent awaiting trial. But, in fact, they will have the opposite effect and at the same time will expose accused persons to an inferior and less just mode of trial.

The Hong Kong Branch of JUSTICE feels that the only explanation for the proposed measures is that the Government wishes to exert greater influence over the judiciary and sees the Campaign as an exercise to implement its measures. A jury is, on the whole, not malleable: career magistrates and District Judges might be more liable to executive influence.