TNAG-1735-FCO40-2448-Minutes-and-Hansards-of-the-Legislative-Council-of-Hong-Kong-1988 — Page 91

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 1 June 1988

1521

Sir, the major areas of reform recommended by the Select Committee were the introduction of compulsory preparatory hearings and the abolition of committal proceedings in these cases. It was proposed that disclosure require- ments of varying degree be placed on the prosecutor and on the accused. The preparatory hearing, while part of the trial, was to take place before the jury was empanelled. Under the scheme proposed, the purposes of the preparatory hearing included the identification of issues likely to be material to the verdict of the jury; aid to the jury's understanding of such issues; expedition of the proceedings before the jury and the assistance to the judge's management of the proceedings. The judge was to be able to determine questions of law during the preparatory hearing, including questions on the admissibility of evidence.

The Select Committee also recommended that the decision should be taken on the Trial of Commercial Crimes Bill 1985 in the light of its conclusion that the mode of trial for complex commercial crimes should remain unchanged. The Administration agrees that the trial by jury should remain, and so I intend later today formally to withdraw the 1985 Bill under Standing Order 52.

Sir, on 15 May 1987, the United Kingdom Criminal Justice Act received Royal Assent. That Act represents that part of the British Government's response to the Roskill Committee's work concerned with complex fraud. The drafting of the proposed Hong Kong legislation took account of the English Act while recognising that the paramount consideration was the implementation of the Hong Kong Select Committee report.

On 11 December 1987, the Complex Commercial Crimes Bill was published as a White Bill. While the Administration was firmly behind the Select Committee's proposals, it was felt to be appropriate to allow a further opportunity for public consultation on this very important measure. As the White Bill sought to implement Select Committee recommendations, public comments were received by OMELCO rather than the Administration. An ad hoc group, once again with Mr. Peter C. WONG, and then later with Mr. John SWAINE, as its chairman, was formed to consider the White Bill and to consider comments and representations on it.

Comments were received from the Judiciary, the Bar Association, the Law Society, the Director of Legal Aid, the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, the Hong Kong Society of Accountants, the Hong Kong Manage- ment Association, the Association of Building Management and the Hong Kong Association of Banks.

Sir, there was broad support for the abolition of committals and the need for some sort of preparatory hearing procedure. Comparisons were made with the Criminal Justice Act which gives a much greater element of judicial discretion in the application of the special procedures than did the Hong Kong White Bill. It was felt that in Hong Kong too, a judge, rather than the Attorney General, should be empowered to decide when a preparatory hearing should take place.