EVIDENCE (AMENDMENT) BILL (As reported from Select Committee)

7.44 p.m.

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is only one point that I wish to mention here. It arose during the discussions in the Select Committee on the new section 54 that we proposed to the Evidence Ordinance. At the last meeting of the Select Committee, Sir, the Member for Farrer Park raised an objection to the terms of clause 3 of the Bill which amended section 54 of the Ordinance. He maintained that under the provisions of sub-clause (2) of the amendment proposed to section 54 of the Ordinance, the accused person would put his character in issue if either he or his counsel were to impugn the character of the prosecution witnesses, and would therefore be liable to cross-examination as to his own character. The Member for Farrer Park then went on to point out further that, in his opinion, once the accused had thereby put his own character in issue, there was nothing to prevent the prosecution from giving independent evidence as to the bad character of the accused.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you will remember that on that occasion I agreed that there appeared to be some merit in what the Member for Farrer Park said, but since then we have both had the benefit of the advice of the State Advocate-General who pointed out that under the provisions of sub-clause (1) of the amendment which we had overlooked then, it is quite clear that the prosecution would be stopped from putting in independent evidence of the bad character of the accused in circumstances where he is cross-examined as to his own character after making imputations on the character of the prosecution witnesses. I am mentioning this tonight, Mr Speaker, Sir, to complete the record.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I also confirm that I have had the benefit of consultations with the State Advocate-General and the Minister for Labour and Law on this, and I am now satisfied that what I said in the Select Committee was probably an over-statement. It was not "probably", Sir; it was an overstatement.

There is just one observation, which I wish to make on the amendment to section 54, Mr Speaker, Sir. It is that the present amendment brings our law into line with the English system. My own view, Mr Speaker, Sir, for what it is worth, is that our section, as it now stands, is much superior to the English law on this. It is much in advance of the English law, and English writers in England have criticised the English system, and they wish to bring about the state of affairs in England which we already have it now here. Therefore, in my own view, this is a retrograde step. But the Minister does not think so, and he has given us an assurance in the Select Committee - you may remember it, Mr Speaker, Sir - that if the law in England is altered, then he will most certainly give consideration to amending it here. With that assurance, I remain satisfied for the moment.

Mr Speaker: Mr Byrne, in reply?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure the House that once we have dealt effectively with the problem of gangsterism, we will be very happy to fall in line with the new English law on this subject.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.