DOCSLIB.ORG

Report Hearsay in Criminal Proceedings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report Hearsay in Criminal Proceedings THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF HONG KONG REPORT HEARSAY IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS This report can be found on the internet at: <http://www.hkreform.gov.hk> November 2009 The Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong was established by the Executive Council in January 1980. The Commission considers for reform such aspects of the law as may be referred to it by the Secretary for Justice or the Chief Justice. The members of the Commission at present are: Chairman: Mr Wong Yan-lung, SC, JP, Secretary for Justice Members: The Hon Mr Justice Andrew Li, Chief Justice Mr Eamonn Moran, Law Draftsman Mr John Budge, SBS, JP The Hon Mr Justice Chan, PJ Mrs Pamela Chan, BBS, JP Professor Felice Lieh-Mak, JP Mr Peter Rhodes Mr Paul Shieh, SC Professor Michael Wilkinson Ms Anna Wu, SBS, JP Mr Benjamin Yu, SC, JP The Secretary to the Commission is Mr Stuart M I Stoker and its offices are at: 20/F Harcourt House 39 Gloucester Road Wanchai Hong Kong Telephone: 2528 0472 Fax: 2865 2902 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.hkreform.gov.hk THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF HONG KONG REPORT HEARSAY IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS CONTENTS Chapter Page Preface 1 Terms of reference 1 The sub-committee 1 Working method 2 What is "the rule against hearsay"? 2 Criticisms of the rule and reform in other jurisdictions 3 Report 3 1 Brief history of the hearsay rule 4 2 Justification for the hearsay rule 7 3 The present law 10 Scope of the hearsay rule 10 (A) Statement and definition of the rule 10 (B) Implied assertions 12 (C) Machine recorded information 14 Common law exceptions to the hearsay rule 15 (A) Admissions and confessions of an accused 15 (B) Co-conspirator's rule 17 (C) Statements of persons now deceased 18 (D) Res gestae 19 (E) Statements made in public documents 20 (F) Statements made in previous proceedings 21 (G) Opinion evidence 21 Statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule 22 (A) Depositions 22 i Chapter Page (B) Business records 24 (C) Computer records 26 (D) Banking records 28 (E) Public documents 29 (F) Official documents 30 (G) Other notable documentary hearsay exceptions 30 4 Cardinal principles and the shortcomings of the 32 present law Widespread criticism of the common law position 32 Is Hong Kong exceptional? 36 Principles of reform and the identification of shortcomings 37 Shortcomings 37 (1) Evidentiary rules should, within the limits of justice 38 and fairness to all parties, facilitate and not hinder the determination of relevant issues (2) Conviction of the innocent is always to be avoided. 40 All accused have a fundamental right to make full answer and defence to a criminal charge (3) Evidentiary rules should be clear, simple, 43 accessible, and easily understood (4) Evidentiary rules should be logical, consistent, and 44 based on principled reasons (5) Questions of admissibility should be determinable 47 with a fair degree of certainty prior to trial so that the legal adviser may properly advise the client on the likely trial outcome (6) Evidence law should reflect increasing global 48 mobility and modern advancements in electronic communications 5 International developments 49 Introduction 49 The international trend 49 Reforms proposed or adopted in other jurisdictions 51 Australia 51 Canada 55 England and Wales 58 New Zealand 69 Scotland 74 South Africa 78 6 The need for reform 80 ii Chapter Page 7 Safeguards as a condition for reform 86 8 Options considered and the version recommended 89 The proposed model of reform 89 Rejected options and proposals 90 The polar extremes: no change and free admissibility 90 Best available evidence 93 Discretion to admit only defence hearsay 94 Broad discretion to admit – the South African model 96 The three main options 98 Option 1 ("the English model") : wide "pigeonhole 98 exceptions" with a narrow discretion to admit Option 2 ("the United States model") : codification 103 Option 3 ("the New Zealand Law Commission model") : 105 discretion based on necessity and reliability 9 Proposed model for reform: the Core Scheme 112 Overview of proposed model 112 The proposed Core Scheme 113 Explanation 117 Definition of "hearsay" (proposal 1) 117 Implied assertions outside the definition (proposal 1) 118 Multiple hearsay (proposal 1) 120 Definition of "criminal proceeding" (proposal 2) 120 Exclusionary rule retained (proposal 2) 122 Effect on the common law (proposals 3-5) 123 Continued operation of existing statutory exceptions 128 (proposal 4) Admission by consent (proposal 6) 129 New discretionary power to admit hearsay (proposal 7) 129 Admission of evidence relevant to credibility and reliability 146 of declarant (proposal 14) Power to direct verdict of acquittal (proposal 15) 148 Safeguards check 152 10 Special topics 154 Banking, business and computer records 154 Bankers' records 154 "Business" records 156 Computer records 158 Prior statements of witnesses 162 Prior inconsistent statements 163 Prior consistent statements 175 Other issues 183 iii Chapter Page Pre-trial procedures 184 Sentencing 185 England: hearsay admissible by prosecution in conspiracy 185 sentencing Canada: hearsay admissible by prosecution in sentencing 186 Australia: no hearsay by prosecution in sentencing 187 New Zealand: no hearsay by prosecution in sentencing 188 Consistent law reform: conviction and sentencing 188 Extradition 189 11 Human rights implications 190 Relevant human rights provisions in Hong Kong 190 Basic Law 190 Hong Kong Bill of Rights 191 The accused's right to "examine the witnesses against him" 192 European jurisprudence on human rights and hearsay 197 Application of principles to the proposed model 201 12 Summary of recommendations 205 The need for reform 205 Safeguards as a condition for reform 205 Options considered and the version recommended 205 Proposed model for reform: the Core Scheme 206 Special topics 209 Annex List of those who responded to the consultation paper 212 iv Preface __________ Terms of reference 1. In May 2001, the Chief Justice and the Secretary for Justice directed the Law Reform Commission: To review the law in Hong Kong governing hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings, and to consider and make such recommendations for reforms as may be necessary. The sub-committee 2. Following that referral, a sub-committee was appointed by the Commission. Its membership was: Hon Mr Justice Stock Justice of Appeal (Chairman) But Sun Wai Solicitor (from July 2006) Peter Chapman Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Department of Justice Alan Hoo, SBS, SC, JP Senior Counsel Andrew Lam Solicitor (until June 2006) Gerard McCoy, SBS, QC, SC Senior Counsel Professor of Law, City University of Hong Kong Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Canterbury, New Zealand Anthony Upham Associate Professor School of Law City University of Hong Kong Hon Mr Justice Wright Judge of the Court of First Instance Simon Young Associate Professor Faculty of Law University of Hong Kong 1 Peter Sit Secretary (until February 2008) Byron Leung Secretary (from March 2008) Working method 3. It was apparent from the sub-committee’s introductory meeting on 30 August 2001 that the subject matter and the approach to it might be controversial, the question having been raised at that very first meeting whether there would be room for a minority report. It was agreed that the first question to address was whether there were any existing problems with the law as it now stood. The work of the committee became complex, requiring detailed study of the rationale for the rules and their exceptions, of criticisms made in common law jurisdictions of the present state of the law, whether those criticisms were valid in Hong Kong, and of solutions proposed elsewhere. 4. All this required preparation of papers by individual committee members, the co-option of further members, and the formation of subgroups to prepare suggested solutions and drafts. No fewer than 73 papers directed at specific issues of discussion were produced, and 19 plenary meetings of the sub-committee held, in the process of preparing a consultation paper setting out the sub-committee's provisional recommendations. That consultation paper was published in November 2005 and distributed widely within the legal profession. 5. A total of 39 responses to the consultation paper were received from the individuals and organisations listed at the Annex to this report. Those responses were carefully considered by the sub-committee in the course of formulating its final recommendations. We express our gratitude to the members of the sub-committee for the immense amount of work which they devoted to this project and we thank all those who took time to share with the sub-committee their views on this complex and controversial subject. What is "the rule against hearsay"? 6. The rule against hearsay in criminal proceedings renders hearsay evidence generally inadmissible in criminal proceedings unless that evidence falls within one of the common law or statutory exceptions to the rule. A simple explanation of the term hearsay would be that "when A tells a court what B has told him, that evidence is called hearsay".1 The need to exclude hearsay evidence when it is adduced to prove the truth of the original statement is mainly based on the assumption that indirect evidence might be untrustworthy and unreliable, particularly in so far as it is not subject to cross- examination. The law's requirement that only first hand testimony of the statement-maker can be admitted in evidence ensures that the witness's credibility and accuracy can be tested in cross-examination. 1 R May, Criminal Evidence (Sweet & Maxwell, 3rd edition, 1995), at 179. 2 Criticisms of the rule and reform in other jurisdictions 7. Despite this rationalisation, the hearsay rule has been the subject of widespread criticism over the years from academics, practitioners and the Bench.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Examination of Witnesses [PDF]
    CHAPTER 32 JANUARY, 2012 ________________________________________________________ Examination of Witnesses Written by Eric Blumenson Table of Contents: §32.1 A Recommended Sequence for Trial Preparation .................................................... 2 §32.2 The Elements of Credibility ..................................................................................... 2 §32.3 Direct Examination .................................................................................................. 4 A. Choosing and Preparing Witnesses ................................................................... 4 B. Selecting the Areas of Testimony ...................................................................... 4 C. Techniques of Questioning ................................................................................ 5 §32.4 Cross-Examination ................................................................................................... 6 A. Selecting the Areas of Testimony ...................................................................... 6 1. Potential Areas of Cross-Examination ......................................................... 6 2. Narrow the Focus to Reduce the Risks ........................................................ 7 3. Subject Matter to Avoid in Cross-Examination ........................................... 9 B. Techniques of Questioning ................................................................................ 9 Cross-References: Checklists of issues in particular cases, § 11.10 Child witnesses, §§
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence in Criminal Proceedings Hearsay and Related Topics
    Criminal Law EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: HEARSAY AND RELATED TOPICS A Consultation Paper LAW COMMISSION CONSULTATION PAPER No 138 The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Brooke, Chairman Professor Andrew Burrows Miss Diana Faber Mr Charles Harpum Mr Stephen Silber, QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WClN 2BQ. This Consultation Paper, completed for publication on 11 May 1995, is circulated for comment and criticism only. It does not represent the final views of the Law Commission. The Law Commission would be grateful for comments on this Consultation Paper before 31 October 1995. All correspondence should be addressed to: Ms C Hughes Law Commission Conquest House 37-38 John Street Theobalds Road London WClN 2BQ (Tel: 0171- 453 1232) (Fax: 0171- 453 1297) It may be helpful for the Law Commission, either in discussion with others concerned or in any subsequent recommendations, to be able to refer to and attribute comments submitted in response to this Consultation Paper. Any request to treat all, or part, of a response in confidence will, of course, be respected, but if no such request is made the Law Commission will assume that the response is not intended to be confidential. The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 138 Criminal Law EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: HEARSAY AND RELATED TOPICS
    [Show full text]
  • Contents May 2020 Issue Spring 2021
    MaySpring 2020 Issue2021 Contents Message from the Issue Editor Dr. Jason Y. K. CHAN P. 3 - 4 Asthma Obesity and asthma P. 5 - 6 Dr. Alice S.S. HO Ear Nose & Throat Non-allergic rhinitis and its management P. 7 - 8 Dr. Jason Y.K. CHAN Management of olfactory dysfunction P. 9 - 10 Dr. Birgitta Y.H. WONG Environment / Microbes Universal masking and allergy P. 11 - 12 Dr. Polly P.K. HO Eye Allergy Prevalence of allergic conjunctivitis in Hong Kong school children P. 13 - 14 Dr. K.W. KAM First-line anti-allergic eyedrops for non-ophthalmologists P. 15 - 16 Dr. Allie LEE Food Allergy Dining out with food allergies P. 17 - 19 Dr. Agnes S.Y. LEUNG, Ms. Chloris H.W. LEUNG, Ms. Ann W.S. AU General Allergy The application of artificial intelligence in allergy P. 20 - 21 Dr. Alson W.M. CHAN Immunology / Drug Allergy Air pollution and COVID-19 P. 22 - 23 Dr. Temy M.Y. MOK Allergy to the COVID-19 vaccines P. 24 - 25 Dr. Jaime S. ROSA DUQUE Skin Allergy Atopic dermatitis: Meeting the unmet needs P. 26 - 27 Dr. David C.K. LUK Allied Health Professionals Polyethylene-glycol: the neglected culprit of hypersensitivity reactions P. 28 - 30 Mr. Brian T.C. LAM, Mr. Andrew W. T. LI Ask the Expert Vaccine allergy P. 31 - 32 Ms. June CHAN, Dr. Philip H. LI Highlights from the 17 – 20 September JSA/WAO Conference JSA/WAO Joint Congress 2020 P. 33 - 35 Dr. Jane C.Y. WONG Upcoming Events/Meetings P. 36 - 37 Acknowledgments P.
    [Show full text]
  • JORC Report 2007
    JORC Report 2007 The Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission (“JORC”) Report 2007 has a new format. Previously, our Report contained information about the JORC, gave an account of its important work during the year and described the different levels of court to give a comprehensive picture of the judicial offices within the responsibility of the JORC. Such information is now separately provided in two reports. First, a new report entitled “Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission” has been issued. This provides an account of the JORC and describes the different levels of court. It has been uploaded on our website. Secondly, an annual report which will concentrate on the work of the JORC during the year will be issued. In an effort to contribute to the protection of the environment, we will no longer publish a paper version of the “Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission” Report or the annual report. Both will only be uploaded on our Website. We hope you will enjoy reading this Report and gain a better understanding of the JORC during 2007. Andrew Li Chief Justice Chairman of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission Membership of JORC 1. In 2007, the Chief Executive re-appointed four members of the JORC for a term of two years from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2009. The membership in 2007 is listed below – Ex officio chairman and member The Honourable Chief Justice Andrew LI Kwok-nang (Chairman) The Honourable WONG Yan Lung, SC, JP (Secretary for Justice) Judges The Honourable Mr. Justice Geoffrey MA Tao-li (from 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2008) The Honourable Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • DNA Fingerprinting: Informed Consent and the Admissibility of Evidence Greg Horton
    DNA Fingerprinting: Informed Consent and the Admissibility of Evidence Greg Horton I: INTRODUCTION All human beings, no matter how varied their appearance, share one basic characteristic: they are built from cells, and in the nucleus of each cell is deoxyribonucleic acid - DNA. Further, the DNA is the same in every cell of the human body. DNA carries the genetic code which determines a person's physical characteristics. Because human beings are generally more similar than different in appearance (that is, for the most part we all have two legs, two arms, a head and a torso), most of our DNA structure is identical. However, approximately one- thousandth of the composition of each person's DNA is unique. Every individual, therefore, except an identical twin, has unique DNA. The existence of this unique DNA structure formed the basis for the develop- ment of a technique which has been described as "the most significant break- through in resolving serious crime since fingerprinting was invented".1 That technique is known as DNA fingerprinting, and it was developed in 1985 by Professor Alec Jeffreys of Leicester University. The essence of the technique is the subjection of a bodily sample, such as blood, semen, saliva, hair, or skin scrapings to a complicated laboratory process.2 This process results in a visualisation on Tande, "DNA Typing: A New Investigatory Tool" [1989] Duke L 474, citing Marshall, "'Genetic Fingerprints' May Catch Killer", LA Times, 11 March 1987, 11. 2 The actual process used is not discussed in this paper but in depth discussions of the technique can be found in most academic articles on the subject of DNA fingerprinting: see for example Kelly, Rankin & Wink, "Method and Applications of DNA Fingerprinting: A Guide for the Non- Scientist" [1987] Crim LR 105.
    [Show full text]
  • “Real Evidence” Refers to Any Tangible Object Or Sound Recording of a Conversation That Is Offered in Evidence
    11.01. Real Evidence (1) Definition. “Real Evidence” refers to any tangible object or sound recording of a conversation that is offered in evidence. (2) Admissibility. Real evidence is admissible upon a showing that it is relevant to an issue in the proceeding, is what it purports to be, and has not been tampered with. Proof that an object has not been tampered with and is what it purports to be depends on the nature of the object and, in particular, whether the object is “patently identifiable,” or “fungible.” (a) Patently identifiable evidence. When real evidence possesses unique or distinctive characteristics or markings and is not subject to material alteration that is not readily apparent, evidence identifying the object normally will constitute the requisite proof. (b) Fungible evidence. When real evidence is fungible, capable of being altered, contaminated, or replaced, or is a sound recording, in addition to testimony identifying the object, proof that the proffered evidence has not been tampered with is required and may be satisfied by: (i) a “chain of custody” (i.e. testimony of those persons who handled the object or recording from the time it was obtained or recorded to the time it is presented in court to identify the object or recording and attest to its unchanged condition); or (ii) proof of circumstances that provide reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the object or recording. 1 (c) Sound recording. A sound recording of a conversation is admissible: (i) upon testimony of a participant in, or a witness to, the conversation that the recording is unaltered and completely and accurately reproduces the conversation at issue; or (ii) by a combination of testimony of a participant and an expert establishing the completeness, accuracy, and absence of alteration of the recording; or (iii) in addition to evidence concerning the making of the recording and identification of the speakers, by establishing a “chain of custody” (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Paths of Justice
    PATHS OF JUSTICE Johannes M. M. Chan http://www.pbookshop.com Hong Kong University Press The University of Hong Kong Pokfulam Road Hong Kong www.hkupress.hku.hk © 2018 Hong Kong University Press ISBN 978-988-8455-93-5 (hardback) ISBN 978-988-8455-94-2 (Paperback) All rights reserved. No http://www.pbookshop.comportion of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed and bound in Hong Kong, China Preface What is justice? Can justice be done? Jurists and philosophers have been asking these questions for centuries. While there is a huge body of learned work on these questions, no theory can tell what justice is or whether justice has been done in any particular case. At the end of the day, justice perhaps just lies in the hearts of ordinary people. Like the concept of the reasonable man, justice may not be something that can be formulated in abstraction but by and large is something that we recognize when we see it in practice. I have long wanted to write a book to explore these themes through real cases. As an academic lawyer, I have the privilege of being involved in the two related but in fact quite separate worlds of academia and legal practice.
    [Show full text]
  • JORC Report 2008
    JORC Report 2008 The Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission (“JORC”) Report has adopted a new format since 2007. Previously, our Report contained information about the JORC, gave an account of its important work during the year and described the different levels of court to give a comprehensive picture of the judicial offices within the responsibility of the JORC. Such information is now separately provided in two reports. First, a new report entitled “Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission” has been issued. This provides an account of the JORC and describes the different levels of court. It has been uploaded on our website. Secondly, an annual report which will concentrate on the work of the JORC during the year will be issued. In an effort to contribute to the protection of the environment, we will no longer publish a paper version of the “Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission” Report or the annual report. Both will only be uploaded on our Website. We hope you will enjoy reading this Report and gain a better understanding of the JORC during 2008. Andrew Li Chief Justice Chairman of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission Membership of JORC 1. In 2008, the Chief Executive re-appointed two members of JORC and appointed one new member to JORC for a term of two years from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2010. The membership in 2008 is listed below – Ex officio chairman and member The Honourable Chief Justice Andrew LI Kwok-nang, GBM (Chairman) The Honourable WONG Yan Lung, SC, JP (Secretary for Justice) Judges The Honourable Mr. Justice Geoffrey MA Tao-li (up to 30 June 2008) The Honourable Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • STATES of MIND Insights on Mental Illness and Mental Health
    STATES OF MIND Insights on Mental Illness and Mental Health Birth Law for All Registration Conservation Dental Age laws for plants Assessment and animals to protect rights News in Brief Taking up the Torch of Leadership Professor Peter Mathieson Succeeds Professor Lap-Chee Tsui After his 12-year tenure as HKU’s Vice- Chancellor, Professor Lap-Chee Tsui stepped down on March 31. Colleagues and students organised a University Family Gathering to bid farewell to Professor Tsui on March 16, the University’s Foundation Day. On April 1, Professor Peter Mathieson assumed office and took over as HKU’s 15th President and Vice- Chancellor. Contents The farewell event for Professor Tsui held in Loke Yew Hall was attended by hundreds of students, alumni, colleagues and friends, all News in Brief Teaching, Research and coming to thank Professor Tsui for his Knowledge Exchange Awards contributions and achievements. 01 Professor Peter Mathieson Succeeds Professor Lap-Chee Tsui 26 Recognising Excellence At the farewell, Professor Tsui said: “I would 02 More International Acclaim for HKU 28 Outstanding Teaching Award like to thank you for all your support and 03 Five Exceptional HKU Academics Named 31 Faculty Teaching Awards encouragement throughout the years. Most A fond farewell was held for Professor Lap-Chee Tsui in Loke Yew Hall on the University’s Foundation Day. Croucher Research Fellows 32 Outstanding Researcher Award importantly, I am thankful that I have been able Treasures of Hong Kong’s Past Find 33 Outstanding Research Student to establish deep friendships and share meet-the-media session, he greeted everyone education, research, leadership and public Permanent Home at HKU Supervisor Award meaningful exchanges with a number of in Cantonese, saying that he was honoured engagement locally and globally.” individuals during my 10 years here at HKU.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence (Real & Demonstrative)
    Evidence (Real & Demonstrative) E. Tyron Brown Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP Atlanta, Georgia 30308 I. TYPES OF EVIDENCE There are four types of evidence in a legal action: A. Testimonial; B. Documentary; C. Real, and; D. Demonstrative. A. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE Testimonial evidence, which is the most common type of evidence,. is when a witness is called to the witness stand at trial and, under oath, speaks to a jury about what the witness knows about the facts in the case. The witness' testimony occurs through direct examination, meaning the party that calls that witness to the stand asks that person questions, and through cross-examination which is when the opposing side has the chance to cross-examine the witness possibly to bring-out problems and/or conflicts in the testimony the witness gave on direct examination. Another type of testimonial evidence is expert witness testimony. An expert witness is a witness who has special knowledge in a particular area and testifies about the expert's conclusions on a topic. ln order to testify at trial, proposed witnesses must be "competent" meaning: 1. They must be under oath or any similar substitute; 2. They must be knowledgeable about what they are going to testify. This means they must have perceived something with their senses that applies to the case in question; 3. They must have a recollection of what they perceived; and 4. They must be in a position to relate what they communicated 1 Testimonial evidence is one of the only forms of proof that does not need reinforcing evidence for it to be admissible in court.
    [Show full text]
  • JORC Report 2003
    Ɂࡗؒ̇ ઐᔈկࡗผంй Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission 2003 ͌፣ Contents Ӱک Foreword ................................................................................................................................... i ௃ ࠒ Chapter Pages Ɂࡗઐᔈկࡗผؒ̇ 1 The Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission ...................................................... 1 – 7 կࡗผؿɮА 2 Work of the Commission .................................................................................................. 8 – 9 ୄᄗؒ৑ࠖ࢐ؒւʥୄᄗؒ৑ 3 Chief Justice and the Court of Final Appeal .................................................................... 10 – 14 ঢ়೩ؒ৑ 4 High Court ........................................................................................................................ 15 – 21 ਟؒ৑ʥɠΔᄗസ୮ਂ 5 District Court and Lands Tribunal ..................................................................................... 22 – 27 സРؒ৑dᄗസ୮ʥϋΐസРؒ࢓ 6 Magistrates’ Courts, Tribunals and Coroner’s Court......................................................... 28 – 31 ፣ڃ Appendix α 7 ˂ 1 ˀϭ 2005 α 6 ˂ 30 ˀଊ։ͨ౨ʑ̇ؒɁࡗઐᔈկࡗผ˚࢐ʥկࡗؿᓯዃ 2003 1 Bio-data of the Chairman and Members of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission for the current term 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2005........................................ 32 – 35 Έඖ̇ؒᓻϽؿؒց߬ұ 2 Statutory Requirements for Various Judicial Offices ........................................................ 36 – 43 Ӱ Forewordک Ɏcȹ࠯ዟ͓ An independent Judiciary upholding the rule ofڬΕȹਝԭԹؿࡈ ࠗಋԞ႓ law is of cardinal importance to Hong Kong
    [Show full text]
  • Laws Governing Homosexual Conduct
    THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF HONG KONG REPORT LAWS GOVERNING HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT (TOPIC 2) LAWS GOVERNING HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT WHEREAS : On 15 January 1980, His Excellency the Governor of Hong Kong Sir Murray MacLehose, GBE, KCMG, KCVO in Council directed the establishment of the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong and appointed it to report upon such of the laws of Hong Kong as may be referred to it for consideration by the Attorney General and the Chief Justice; On 14 June 1980, the Honourable the Attorney General and the Honourable the Chief Justice referred to this Commission for consideration a Topic in the following terms : "Should the present laws governing homosexual conduct in Hong Kong be changed and, if so, in what way?" On 5 July 1980, the Commission appointed a Sub-committee to research, consider and then advise it upon aspects of the said matter; On 28 June 1982, the Sub-committee reported to the Commission, and the Commission considered the topic at meetings between July 1982 and April, 1983. We are agreed that the present laws governing homosexual conduct in Hong Kong should be changed, for reasons set out in our report; We have made in this report recommendations about the way in which laws should be changed; i NOW THEREFORE DO WE THE UNDERSIGNED MEMBERS OF THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF HONG KONG PRESENT OUR REPORT ON LAWS GOVERNING HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT IN HONG KONG : Hon John Griffiths, QC Hon Sir Denys Roberts, KBE (Attorney General) (Chief Justice) （祈理士） （羅弼時） Hon G.P. Nazareth, OBE, QC Robert Allcock, Esq.
    [Show full text]