XCC(69)50
CONFIDENTIAL
· 6
(g) Clause 15: Legal advisers and privileged
information.
As has been noted, the Bar and Law Society have objected to the requirement that they should reveal privileged information about their clients. This objection may stem substantially from the fear that legal advisers may be forced to disclose the instructions given to them by a person for the purposes of his defence to proceedings under this Ordinance. The clause was not intended to serve this purpose and has now been altered - along the lines suggested by the Bar Association - to make this clear. Except to this limited extent, the unimpaired preservation of a solicitor's privilege might result in corrupt persons, wishing to conceal their corrupt activities and the proceeds thereof, making use of solicitors in reliance on his privilege, a development which would hardly be welcomed by solicitors themselves.
(h) Clause 22: Power of court to grant conditional
pardon,
(i)
This clause has now been rephrased to avoid using the word "pardon", which has been confused with the prerogative power, and to make it clear that it is an undertaking not to prosecute which is the real protection offered to the accused.
Former clause 23: Protection of informers. The objections which have been raised to keeping the identity of informers secret are recognised as having force, Also, it has been represented that sub-clause (3) might possibly deter informers from coming forward. If an informer gives false infor- mation he could be dealt with under other Ordinances. It is thought sufficient to rely on the common law which empowers a court to require the disclosure of the identity of an informer only in those exceptional cases where the interests of justice so require. Accordingly, this clause has been deleted.
(j) Old clause 25: (Unsworn statements).
The Judiciary and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have suggested that this provision should apply to all criminal cases and not merely to offences under the bill. The Law Society, while disliking the clause, feel that it should apply generally, if at all. It is understood that the English Criminal Law Revision Committee is likely to recommend that the right to give unsworn evidence be abolished in all criminal trials, as an historical anachronism. It is felt that considerable opposition will be made to the limited "right" proposed in the published bill and that it would be better to await the report of the English Criminal Law Revision Committee. When this has been published, an amendment could be made to the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.
CONFIDENTIAL