(3) Iajority Veralete by Jurien
1(b)]
de mauerataud that the position under the Jury Ordinance (Cap. 3) is as follows: a jury cuminto of ouven peruons; a bare majority is fufficiunt to constitute the vordhot in civil cases; while in criminal cases a majority of not less thun 5 is required, except for a finding of guilty or not guilty of an offence punishable by death where the jury must be unanimous. «e agree with your Attorney-General that it i. wrong to assert that such arrangements are "completely contrary to accepted læritich legal opinion and practice". ir. McPetrie loft with your attorney-Gellukul 2u antruct from professor Glanville Williams' "The roof of Guilt" ("hird dition, 1965) which discusses the question of majority verdicts in criminal trials and refers to Scotland and a number of other countries where sucl. verdicts are possible. We do not wish to auggest any change in the Hong Kong on this matter if you consider it to be satisfactory.
~
(4) The Right to challen Juryen
olice Powers of trust
1(c) 7 Z 1(a)7
Triefing privātu rructitioners to prosecute in nublic cases [1(0)]
de lave nothing to add to the comments of your Attorney-General on these throu houds.
(5) kaquout for the repeal of the District Court (Asendent No. 2) Ürdinance
1(1)_7
The Bar Association (ive no reasons for their objection to the provisions of this Ordinance and it adght be in the public interest that errors of law should be subject to rectification under the procedure provided. In ngland the prosecution may appeal on a point of law by cuse stated from a decision of a magistrates' court - Ingistrates Court act, 1952, section 87. (See, too, Halsbury's Laws, Vol. 25, paragraph 468 on pp.250-1). Our advisers have been unable to disco.or whether, as the Bar association seem to allege, this section has its origin in the fact that magistrates in England are often lay en.
(Section 87 of the 1952 act reproduces with modifications section 33 of the SucKARY Jurisdiction Act 1979). they point out, however, that section 87 of the Act of 1952 applies in relation to the decisions of all magistrates' courts including those held by a profum.ional magistrate. Recent instances of appeals by the prosecution from decisions of the latter are: Doak v. Bedford (1964) ↑ All d.3.311; Kelland v. aymond (1964) 1 ll 1.k.564.
(6) suggestion for an Crdinance corresponding to the First Offenders act 1558/(g)'
From the first sentence of the attorney-General's comments under this head in his letter to the Bar Association, it would appear that the practice followed by the Magistrate. in Hong Kong has substantially the same reault as that which is required by the Sirut (ffundera net 1958, viz. that a first offender is seat to prison only if the court is of the opinion that there is no other appropriate way of dealing with him and that in all other cases the Magistrate imposes a sentensu other than imprisonment, or else dismisses the charge or discharges the offender“ conditionally madar g. 227, 0.35. If this is a true picture of the position, and we still be gruteful to have confirmation of this, your reluctance to introduce legislation on the lines of the First Offenders Act could reasonably be based on the practical argument that the existing machinery works perfectly well. we would not, of course, que any objection in principle to the introduction of such legislation if you thought it desirable. we are not, with respect, convince of the validity of the argument adduced in the second sentence of the Attorney-General's coauto - if a sense of socurity is not inculcated in
/criminally
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.