212884-1934-Supplementary-Draft-Bills--Jury-Amendment-Coroner-s-Abolition-Amendment — Page 7

660

It is open to question whether this alteration by a Revision Ordinance had the effect of abolishing the view in cases under old section 8; especially as section 4 imposes on magistrates the duties which a Coroner had by law at the commencement of the Ordinance, one of those duties being a view of the body (Rex v. Haslewood 1926 II K.B. 468).

In the Straits Settlements by section 326 (2) of Ordinance. No. 121 provision is made for a view of the body where it appears to the greater number of the jury to be expedient. In England by section 14 of the Coroners (Amendment) Act, 1926, a view by the Coroner is still necessary and by the jury also if a majority so desires.

In the circumstances it is considered desirable to add, in sub-section (3) of new section 8, words which will make it clear that at inquiries under the section the magistrate shall view the body but that a view by the jury shall not be necessary unless it appears to the magistrate or to the greater number of the jurors expedient for the jury to do so.

4. Section 6 of this Ordinance adds a new sub-section (3) to section 12 of the principal Ordinance requiring a magistrate who holds an inquiry without a jury to record his finding in the same way as he records the finding of the jury under sub-section (1) of that section.

5. Section 7 of this Ordinance adds to section 13 of the principal Ordinance three new sub-sections of which sub- sections (2) and (3), based on section 20 (1) and (3) of the Coroners (Amendment) Act, 1926, provide for the adjourn- ment of an inquiry in cases where a person has been charged before a magistrate with causing the death of the person whose death is the subject of the inquiry, and regulate the procedure in cases where such inquiry is re-opened after the jury has been discharged.

New sub-section (4) provides for the continuity of pro- ceedings at an adjourned inquiry held by a magistrate alone or with the same jury as at the original inquiry.

6. Under section 14 of the principal Ordinance any person against whom, at an inquiry, evidence of an offence has been disclosed may be prosecuted according to the ordinary pro- cedure before magistrates or, at the discretion of the magistrate holding the inquiry, committed for trial at the Supreme Court. Section 8 of this Ordinance abolishes this discretion, and makes prosecution before a magistrate necessary in all cases before trial.

The object of sections 7 and 8 of this Ordinance is to ensure that every accused person shall be charged as soon as possible with the offence of which he is accused, and shall have an opportunity of replying to the charge and cross-examining the witnesses; and also to secure a uniform procedure in all cases. The amendment to section 14 of the principal Ordin- ance is based on section 355 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Ordinance No. 121) of the Straits Settlements. Provision is made for the obtaining, by an accused person, of copies of the depositions on which he has been charged, and for bail; and it is also provided, on the lines of section 20 (2) of the Coroners (Amendment) Act, 1926, that no person who has been charged on indictment may be charged with any offence of which he could have been convicted on the indictment.