Grenville Cross 江樂士

Courts should open doors to cameras

Grenville Cross urges Hong Kong to follow the trend in other jurisdictions of allowing court proceedings to be televised, because it would help broaden public understanding of the criminal justice system

BROADENING PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING  May 26, 2012

Justice is open to everyone," Judge Sturgess supposedly said, "in the same way as the Ritz Hotel." Although people in Hong Kong have the right to go to court to watch the proceedings, very few do so. Open justice, however, is a very good thing, and much more should be done to make the judicial process more understandable to the public at large. That why the judges could hide how they mis-judged in Lehman Minibonds mis-selling frauds for two courts case concerning Bank of China.

In recent years, many common law jurisdictions have recognised the need for the director of public prosecutions to have the control of prosecutions, and for the political master to disengage from the prosecution process. In 2009, the attorney general of England and Wales transferred the bulk of prosecution powers to the DPP, and this provides a model for Hong Kong. The secretary for justice, who reports to the chief executive, is a government minister, appointed by the central authorities, yet he is also the chief prosecutor, which involves a clear conflict of roles. If the secretary disengages from prosecutions in favour of the DPP, this will promote public confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system, and align Hong Kong with international trends.

I Grenville Cross SBS, QC, SC is the Vice-Chairman of the Senate of the International Association of Prosecutors. He was appointed Director of Public Prosecutions of Hong Kong, China, after the reunification in 1997, and held this post until 2009. Mr Cross served on the Executive Committee of the International Association of Prosecutors from 2007 to 2010. A member of the Bars of England and Wales, and of Hong Kong, he was appointed Queen’s Counsel (QC) in 1990, becoming Senior Counsel (SC) in 1997. Mr Cross is Honorary Professor of Law, University of Hong Kong, Visiting Professor of Law, Chinese University of Hong Kong, and Adjunct Professor of Law, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing. He is Sentencing Editor of Hong Kong Cases and of Archbold Hong Kong, and Co-author of Sentencing in Hong Kong. In 2010, he was awarded the Silver Bauhinia Star (SBS), for his contribution to the development of prosecution services in Hong Kong, and the Certificate of Merit of the International Association of Prosecutors, for his contribution to global efforts to prosecute crime.

江樂士狠插黃仁龍 - 東方日報

高官貪腐陰霾籠罩香江，曾經為本港司法制度把關、負責檢控工作的前任刑事檢控專員江樂士（Grenville Cross）忍不住開腔發炮，指特首曾蔭權爵士及前任政務司司長許仕仁等人先後捲入接受富商款待及涉嫌收受利益等醜聞，分別遭廉政公署調查及拘捕；政府最高層的現任及前任官員同時惹官非，帶給社會的震盪是史無前例的（unprecedented），在現時政府管治威信蒙陰影時刻，律政司司長黃仁龍應即時把檢控權交予非政治任命的刑事檢控專員，作出公平公正公開的檢控決定，始能釋除公眾疑慮。

江樂士昨在香港大學舉行的法律研討會上指出，律政司司長一直手執刑事檢控大權，但在曾蔭權等政府最高層官員及商界財團接連牽涉利益輸送案件後，身為行政會議成員兼曾蔭權法律顧問的律政司司長，能否不偏不倚在毫無政治壓力下作出公平公正的檢控決定，已令社會大眾心生疑慮，目前有急切需要檢討有關做法。

曾蔭權、許仕仁及唐英年分別惹禍，許仕仁率先因涉嫌觸犯防賄條例及公職人員行為失當被廉政公署高調拘捕，律政司早前表明，黃仁龍信納現任刑事檢控專員薛偉成與涉案人士沒有關連，已授權薛偉成處理此宗案件，並在必要時考慮是否作出檢控。江樂士留意到，在曾蔭權接受款待及唐英年僭建的個案中，黃仁龍並無向外公布是否會抽身並將檢控權交予薛偉成，不同的處理手法再惹懷疑，當中有否內情不得而知。

質疑不告貪曾 可提司法覆核

不過，當局放軟手腳未必可令貪曾逃過大難，一旦黃仁龍決定不起訴曾蔭權等人，便要隨時面對市民挑戰有關決定。江樂士解釋，市民可提出司法覆核質疑黃仁龍的決定違憲，沒有按《基本法》賦予他的權力維護本港司法公平獨立，令公眾利益受損；市民亦可以個人身份提出控告，裁判官可按理據批准申請人以私人傳票方式，刑事控告曾蔭權等人。

除了貪曾等三人，早前多名官員亦涉及住所僭建，當中教育局局長孫明揚多年來漠視屋宇署發出的「清拆令」，但至今並無被檢控，事件引起市民非議。江樂士又表示，當中有否特殊原因市民茫無頭緒，但有關情況已打擊市民對政府的信任，更令新界居民有藉口「有樣學樣」，增加政府打擊僭建的執法成效。

引程介南案 放權檢控有先例

江樂士引述自身經驗，指在前任立法會議員程介南以權謀私及前任財政司司長梁錦松被指偷步買車的個案中，當時的律政司司長抽身並將檢控權交給他，由他作出獨立檢控決定，證明律政司司長下放刑事檢控決定權的做法可行，有關做法既符合《基本法》的原則，亦不會涉及修訂法例，當局沒有藉口再議而不決，且應該盡快實施，此舉亦有助重建市民對政府的信心。

律政司發言人昨回應稱，有既定政策確保檢控決定是公平公正地作出，在調查機構完成調查並諮詢法律意見時，會小心檢視所有證據及作出檢控決定，一般而言，如案件或涉案人身份敏感，會將檢控決定交由刑事檢控專員作出決定，或尋求獨立大律師意見，或兩者並行，這是可行的做法，而過去也有先例。