A government counsel said yesterday there was no justification for the 'draconian' measure of throwing out of court for a third time the fraud case against the former chairman of the Allied Group.
In response to claims that the decade-old case against Lee Ming Tee had turned into a persecution and had breached the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, Ian Lloyd said going to trial was the only appropriate remedy if there had been a breach.
On Monday, counsel for Lee, Jonathan Caplan QC, told the court the action against his client breached Article 11 (2) (c) of the bill dealing with the rights of those charged with or convicted of a criminal offence, since it ordained 'these persons be tried without undue delay'.
He read from an affidavit from Lee's solicitor, Jonathan Midgley, who said that in his 13 years of practice, this was the only case he had known that had taken over a decade to bring to trial with the accused still living in the jurisdiction.
But Mr Lloyd denied that Lee's rights under Article 11 were breached and said the circumstances whereby a judge could order a stay on the breach of Article 11 would be extremely rare.
'It seems to me that at the end of the day, if a breach is concerned, there must be a just and appropriate remedy ... to go to trial,' he said.