Handle with care
THERE will be some disappointment the Government has, for the moment, rejected the call for specialist courts to be set up for cases involving the handicapped. However, the Chief Justice's proposal that a working group be set up to study the alternatives to a new court may be the more sensible approach.
Following Mr Justice Woo's decision last week to halt a rape trial to avoid subjecting a deaf, dumb and slightly mentally handicapped woman to the ordeal of cross-examinationon her allegations, the need to re-examine the procedures for dealing with the handicapped has become evident. It is clearly unacceptable that there should have been no other alternative than to let the accused go free without a full trial.
Nevertheless, the establishment of a special court may not be the solution, if the same or better results could be achieved in less cumbersome and bureaucratic ways. This newspaper has already argued in favour of changing the rules covering the way evidence can be given in difficult sexual assault cases. Judges should be permitted to make greater use of closed courts to avoid distressing alleged victims. Videotaped evidence taken in private, away from the stressful surroundings of a public hearing, is also increasingly adopted overseas in cases of alleged abuse of children under 14.
The judiciary is rightly wary of relaxing standards of evidence for fear of prejudicing the rights of the defendant. Yet the adoption of such methods in Hong Kong might have provided a solution to Mr Justice Woo's dilemma in the case in question. It would not necessarily have helped the handicapped in general, but there is no practical reason if sensitive examination rules can be applied to victims of sexual offences, they cannot also be used to deal with the mentally handicapped as a matter of course.
However, there may be a more general objection of principle to singling out groups of people rather than types of cases for automatic special treatment. It is one thing to set up separate courts to deal with family law, cases of unfair dismissal or, evenfor sexual offences. It is another to decide that one group of individuals (other than children, who are already handled separately in the juvenile courts) should automatically be dealt with as a separate group.
In the case where the mentally handicapped person is the accused, in particular, there is a fine line between granting automatic special treatment and assuming the person is unfit to plead. There is certainly a need to handle sensitive individuals withdelicacy. However, it is vital that as far as possible the proceedings of the courts remain open to public scrutiny particularly during this period of transition to Chinese rule. It would set a dangerous precedent to single out whole sections of society for automatic in camera treatment.
