depended. The Bill was the first proposal coming soon after the Joint Declaration to touch on a raw nerve of anxiety about future political arrangements, and the community recoiled instinctively from changes. Lastly, he said that it was time for the community to tackle constructively the solution to the problems it had recognised and to join in a positive spirit in working out the most acceptable solution.
Concluding the debate, Sir Roger said that the select committee would consider and draw on a wide range of submissions and materials, including the report of the Roskill Committee. It should concern itself with the particular problems of Hong Kong which might not be the same as those in the U.K. He concurred with Mr Peter C WONG that since the Bill was with the Council, it was Members' responsibility to decide what should be done in the best interests of Hong Kong. Any proposal for legislation would have to be considered by the Council and he believed they should get on with the job immediately.
The motion was carried unanimously. The fourteen Unofficial Members who had served on the Ad Hoc Group for this Bill, and the Secretary for Economic Services, were nominated by the President of the Council on 28.5.85 to the select committee. The Convener of the Ad Hoc Group, Mr Peter C WONG, was nominated as Chairman.
The following section summarises the work of the select committee.
(ii) Select Committee on Trials of Complex Commercial Crimes On 5.1.85, the Legislative Council deferred the Second Reading of the Trial of Commercial Crimes Bill 1985 and appointed a select committee with the following terms of reference:
"to consider and report on the appropriate measures to be taken to resolve the problems involved in the prosecution and trial of complex commercial crimes, including changes in the procedures before and during trial and the mode of trial."
The President of the Council nominated, under Standing Order No. 61(2), Mr Peter C WONG as Chairman with 13 other Unofficials and one Official (Secretary for Economic Services) as Members of the select committee. All 14 Unofficials had been members of the
Ad Hoc Group set up to examine the Trial of Commercial Crimes Bill 1985.
The Committee first met on 4.6.85 and agreed that its first task should be to consider:
(i) what constituted a complex commercial crime; and
(ii) what were the problems and difficulties involved in the trial of complex commercial crimes.
The Committee considered that it was necessary to consult as widely as possible and set out a timetable to meet various relevant organisations. The Committee also invited the public at large to forward any suggestions or comments that they might have for the Committee's consideration.
At its first meeting, the Committee made a recommendation to the Administration that Standing Order No. 63 be amended to allow public meetings to be reported. Such an amendment was thought necessary both to bring the Committee into line with the Finance and Public Accounts Committees and the spirit of more open government.
The Standing Order was duly amended by the Legislative Council on 10.7.85 and it now reads:
"The evidence taken before a select committee and documents presented to the Committee shall not, except in the case of sittings of the Committee held in public, be published by a member of the Committee or by any other person before the Committee have presented their report to the Council."
(iii) Meetings and Submissions The Committee met nine times to hear evidence from Government officials, the Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong, and to hold in-house discussions.
Written submissions were received from the Hong Kong Bar Association, the Law Society of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Branch of Justice, the Faculty of Law of Hong Kong University, the Hong Kong Society of Accountants and a number of commercial and industrial organisations.
To acquaint themselves with the jury system, a number of members visited the Supreme Court on 22.7.85. The select committee noted that apparently there had only been two special jury trials in the last 20-30 years and the Special Jury list (in force as at 15.2.85) was felt to be out-of-date.
(iv) What constituted a complex commercial crime
The Committee noted that the Trial of Commercial Crimes Bill 1985 did not include a definition of complex commercial crime but proposed that the Chief Justice be satisfied first that the trial would involve an offence commonly called a commercial crime and secondly that the evidence to be heard in the trial was likely to be difficult to understand and appreciate because of its technicality or quantity. Neither the Legal Department, the Hong Kong Bar Association nor the Law Society of Hong Kong believed that it was possible to define a complex commercial crime with any degree of precision, but all agreed that such a crime could be identified.
(v) The problems and difficulties involved in the trial of complex commercial crimes
The Committee examined the preliminary views of the Hong Kong Bar Association, the Law Society of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Branch of Justice. Amongst the problems identified were: pre-trial investigation; the decision to prosecute; the selection of charges; the choice of venue/mode of trial; committal proceedings; pre-trial review; jury related considerations; presentational considerations at the trial; expertise; rules of evidence; and time and expense.
(vi) Conclusion
The Committee recognised the difficulty inherent in seeking to provide a definition of a complex commercial crime, although they considered that it should prove possible to identify the essential ingredients of such an offence. From the evidence received so far, they were of the opinion that the problems involved in the trial of complex commercial crimes were not necessarily peculiar to this category of crime, but as a matter of degree these problems were specially highlighted in commercial crime cases. Such problems raised in particular the question of investigation of facts before charge, the need for searching pre-trial reviews to eliminate unnecessary issues, and the efficient presentation of facts and argument in court. They had not however reached a definitive conclusion on these matters because of the limited time available to the Committee and because a
15
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.