644221-1894-Bills-Po-Leung-Kuk-Supreme-Court-Summary-Jurisdiction-Jury-Consolidation — Page 3

t.

#

THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 10TH MARCH, 1894.

1

4. In lieu of section 22 of the principal Ordinance, the following words shall be substituted :-

In the event of any of the jurors dissenting from the residue, the jury shall retire to consider their verdict and, after reasonable consultation, the verdict in civil cases of a majority and in criminal cases of a majority consisting of not less than five jurors shall be held and deemed to all intents and purposes to be the verdict of the jury. Provided always, that if any person be arraigned for any offence visited by the law with capital punishment, then and in such case the jury must be unanimous in their verdict of guilty or not guilty; but if a majority consisting of not less than five jurors as aforesaid should find such person guilty of a less crime than the capital one, then the finding of such majority shall be the verdict, and sentence shall follow accordingly and if in any case it may, for any cause, seem to be desirable to the Judge, ho the jury to further consider their verdict.

:

may direct

5. In lieu of section 23 of the principal Ordinance, the following words shall be substituted :-

*

In the event of the death, illness, or default of attendance of any one or two of the jurors during the trial of any suit, action, or information, it shall be lawful for the Court, in its discretion to order the trial of such suit, action, or information, to be proceeded with in like manner as if the full number of jurors had continued to serve on the jury, and any verdict returned by the remaining jurors, or in civil cases by a majority or in criminal cases by a majority consisting of not less than five remaining jurors shall be of equal validity and have the same force and effect as if it had been returned by a jury consisting of the full number of seven jurors. Provided always, that in criminal cases where the offence charged is visited by the law with capital punishment the jury shall not consist of less than seven men. Provided also that it shall be lawful for the Court, instead of proceeding with the trial with the remaining jurors, to cause a new jury to be empanelled, sworn and, if necessary, charged with any prisoner or accused; and the suit, action, or infor- mation shall be tried as if such first jury had not been empanelled.

6. Whenever it may be necessary to summon a jury in the Summary Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the num- ber drawn to form a panel shall be six. Subject as afore- said, the provisions of this and the principal Ordinance so far as the same are applicable shall apply to such juries.

Sention sub- Atituted for Section 22 of No. 19 of 1887.

Verdict of majority, Majority to consist of not less than fire in Criminal Cases, not Capital.

Section sub- stituted for Section 23 of No.18 of 1887,

Provision in case of death, illness, &c. of

one or more

Jurors during

trial.

Jury panel in Summary Jurisdiction

Reasons.

By The Jury Consolidation Ordinance, 1887, a distinc- tion was made between Civil and Criminal Cases. Actual Service was required in Civil cases to exempt jurors, who were summoned, from further service during the current year until all the other names in the Ballot Box had been exhausted; whereas, in Criminal Cases, summons without actual service procured such exemption. It followed that some jurors might have to serve two or three times in a year, while others, although summoned, were not called upon to serve at all. Section 3 abolishes this distinction with a view of preventing such inequalities.

Sections 4 and 5 require, in Criminal Cases, the assent of not less than five jurors to the verdict. Hitherto, a majority of four to three could return a binding verdict not only in Civil but in Criminal Cases also. This change is thought desirable in Criminal cases. In capital cases, however, a unanimous verdiet is still required.

Section 6 supplies the omission of previous Ordinances to specify the number of jurors to be drawn to form a panel where the jury consists of three, in cases within the Supreme Court's Summary Jurisdiction.

W. MEIGH Goodman.

117