Book Review: A Hong Kong Perspective
| Date | 01 December 1993 |
| Published date | 01 December 1993 |
| DOI | 10.1177/000486589302600310 |
| Subject Matter | Book Reviews |
BOOK REVIEWS 277
registration, as well as western prison reforms, also form an integral
part
of the
construction of
the
genealogy of
the
institutions of social control.
One
area
not
covered as extensively as the contemporary prison system, though, was
the
range of
sub-criminal punishments which are freely employed in modern China.
It is both refreshing and a challenge to
read
such a scholarly work which allows, or
even requires,
the
reader
to engage with
the
posing of questions about the subject
matter
and invites us to reformulate the way we approach
our
topic as a whole.
Melbourne SARAH BIDDULPH
Juries: A Hong Kong Perspective, P Duff, M Findlay, C Howarth and C Tsang-Fai,
Hong Kong University Press (1992), 169pp, $11.50.
Juries: A Hong Kong Perspective is a most interesting and accessible short work. It
reports on a survey conducted by
the
City Polytechnic of Hong Kong on the views
about
the
functioning of juries held by members of the judiciary and legal profession,
as well as persons who had served as
jurors
in the courts of the soon to be ex-British
colony.
The
results of the survey
are
tantalising and instructive
and
offer a rare
empirically based insight into the effectiveness of the operation of the criminal jury
system.
The
most striking result of the survey is the affirmation bythe respondents of the
importance
of
the
jury. Given
the
transitional political situation in the colony, the
strength of
the
symbolic importance invested in the institution of trial by jury is
fascinating, the
more
so as many of
the
respondents knew little and understood less
about the jury system.
The
researchers confronted aproblem familiar to many of us
who have endeavoured to secure permission from the authorities to contact former
jurors. Much
that
they wanted to do was not permitted. However, half of Hong
Kong's High
Court
judges responded to a questionnaire and some 55 former jurors
also furnished information.
Among the interesting results of
the
research was the fact
that
nearly athird of
the barristers who responded to the survey expressed the view
that
jurors failed to
comprehend evidence in complex commercial cases. Over 70% of the jurors, on the
other
hand, expressed the view
that
they understood over 80% of the evidence, with
the remaining jurors including difficulties in comprehending English generally,
together with judicial instructions, among their comprehension problems. It is
disturbing
that
of the three jurors who claimed to understand less than 60% of the
trial in which they had been involved, all convicted. However, if the theory is correct
that the jury verdict is the result of
the
aggregated wisdom
of
the individual jurors,
then this means that the incomprehension of some is not necessarily indicative of an
unfair result for an accused.
At a lighter level, the authors report a decision of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal
which upheld an appeal against conviction on the ground that the verdict was made
unsafe by lapses in concentration by jurors, in particular the tendency of one
particular
juror
to doze off during proceedings.
Anumber of jurors identified factors partially or wholly external to the evidence
that may have influenced their decision, including the appearance, criminal record
and demeanour of the accused, sympathy toward family members of the defendant,
and an "instinctive feeling". Most of the jurors found the judge's summing-up
helpful and did not feel that the length of the trial had had any impact upon their
decision.
To continue reading
Request your trial