TNAG-1734-FCO40-2447-Minutes-and-Hansards-of-the-Legislative-Council-of-Hong-Kong-1988 — Page 139

requires the accused to serve on

deliver to the court

written

reasonably foreseeable propositions

defence may wish to rely. I have

>

the prosecutor

and

submission of all

of law, on which the

earlier moved the

amendment to clause 13(1)(d), which if passed, would require

the prosecutor to serve on the accused and deliver to the

of any proposition of laws

court. a A

statement

This therefore,

specifically applicable to the prosecution case on which

It is, the prosecutor proposes to rely.

ᄉ appropriate that the accused who has thus been informed of

the law on which the prosecutor will rely should likewhile

be required to inform the prosecutor. and the court in

advance of what propositions of law which the accused

will relying

would be frem fon to counter the propositions of law stated

by the prosecutor under clause 13(1)(d).

My third amendment

relates

to the original

subclauses (3) and (4) the former of which would have

prevented the accused from introducing evidence after the

jury has been empanelled which was in consistent with 2

if

then

defence response except with leave of the judge, and

such leave was given and the originally subclause (4)

would enable the prosecutor to quote evidence in the battle

bottle thereof. These two subsections have been debated at

bott

J

length and ete certainly do not wish to bore Members

about by

repeating them in this Committee. Suffice to say that

has

at the end the Administration shown

immensely

a good

sense in deciding to delete both subclauses altogether.