Selective Prosecution
By deciding to bring charges against activist Leung Kwok-hung and two of his group, the government and the prosecution authority has created the policy of selective prosecution. The fact remains that since the handover, more than 300 demonstrations had been held without legal notification to authority, and that none of those people was prosecuted, barring abnormal exceptions. SCMP also has drawn attention to other apparent breaches of the Public Order Ordinance, but none of them have provoked legal action. Yet Leung Kwok-hung and two of his group were prosecuted, let alone convicted. One might wonder why. After the magistrate¡¦s verdict, the Secretary for Justice, Elsie Leung, and the Director of Public Prosecution, Grenville Cross, SC, were presented with the criticism of selective prosecution. The answer was that the Department of Justice was alerted to prosecution by the Legislative Council debate last year, in which the majority upheld the Ordinance. Therefore it is not absurd to assume that the prosecution was fueled by political pressure. Although that notion was denied, this incident has undoubtedly diminished public confidence in the prosecution system. In this paper, we will examine the current
1. The decision was the result of an unlawful prosecution policy The Chambers of the Attorney General had also provided transparency of its power to the public. Part of former AG Michael Thomas¡¦s speech on prosecution policy in the Legislative Council on 25 March 1987 has now been included into the Department of Justice¡¦s official document on Prosecution Policy: Guidance for Government Counsel (1998). It was designed to explain to the public the policy, principles, and practices of the prosecution authority. This document describes prosecutorial decision making as a two stage process. The first stage consists of evaluation of the evidence and assessing whether there is a ¡¥reasonable prospect for conviction¡¦ if the case goes to trial. The second stage is to consider whether bringing a prosecution would be in the public interest. The criteria used in prosecuting decisions are clearly listed to the public, making the office subject to public scrutiny. We can note that a high degree of accountability, independence, and transparency are achieved and are clearly expressed to the public, but is it enough? Where there is doubt in whether his quasi-judicial powers are properly or fairly exercised, he is subject to the question of accountability. However, the AG does not need to defend his decision before a court. The leading case is Gouriet v Union of Post Office Worker [1978], the House of Lords held that the AG¡¦s exercise of power to come to a decision was not susceptible to judicial review, because it involved various aspects of the public interests. Per Lord Wilberforce ¡§¡K..are not such as courts are fitted or equipped to make.¡¨ Although the AG does not need to defend his decision before a court, he is still susceptible to questioning and debating from the Pa
Some topics in this essay:
Secretary Justice,
Prosecution Policy,
Government Counsel,
Legislative Council,
Leung Kwok-hung,
Hong Kong,
Lord Wilberforce,
House Lords,
AG England,
Steps Flawed,
secretary justice,
prosecution authority,
hong kong,
prosecution policy,
legislative council,
leung kwok-hung,
accountability independence,
office secretary justice,
office secretary,
2 decision,
powers exercised,
policy 2 decision,
prosecution authority avoid,
ag defend decision,
guidance government counsel,
Join now to see the rest of the essay!
Approximate Word count = 1219
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)
More Essays on Selective Prosecution Professional Papers: |
CUSTOMER SERVICES
|
|
Saved Papers
You haven't saved any papers.
|