XCC(69)32
CONFIDENTIAL
- 6 -
7
29
The Commissioner has suggested that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue should be included generally under subclause 14(1)(f) together with other heads of Government departments. The Commissione of Police would not oppose deletion of subclause 14(1)(e) and reliance on 14(1)(f) but has made the point that if the Commissioner of Inland Revenue is not specifically referred to by name this could be construed as an attempt to mislead the public. This subclause is thought to be of value in the investigation of offences under clause 10 (a public servant living beyond his means) since his tax returns will necessarily limit the area of manoeuvre available to a dishonest public servant. Also, much of the information in Salaries Tax returns regarding income of wives, and allowances claimed would be useful, particularly if the allowances were disproportionate to a person's salary.
30
Clause 15 deals with legal advisers who, in that capacity, may be in possession of information regarding the affairs of their clients which is relevant to an inquiry under this bill. As a general rule, the law of evidence protects from disclosure all oral or documentary communications passing between a person and his legal adviser in professional confidence. However, not all communications are pro- tected from disclosure by this general rule, which does not protect communications made in furtherance of any crime, whether the legal adviser was a party to, or ignorant of the illegal object. In view of the foregoing, the position of legal advisers in possession of privileged information, which may be required for the purpose of an investigation of an alleged offence under this bill, will be statutorily regulated by clause 15, which preserves the general privilege, except in respect of the matters expressly dealt with in the clause.
By virtue of clause 15, legal advisers will know where they stand and will be protected under it, from any action their client would otherwise have had against them for disclosure. Moreover, the clause should deter any person from using his legal adviser to handle the investment, etc. of his gains from corrupt transactions. It is not dissimilar to section 51(4)(a) and (4A) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Chapter 112). It is not intended as a means of finding out what instructions an accused person has given to his legal advisers for the purpose of defending him on the charge,
31
Evidence (Part IV)
This Part deals with matters related to evidence, on which the Working Party found the existing legislation to be unsatisfactory.
32
Clause 21 deals with accomplices. At present, it is difficult to secure a conviction on the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices, because as a rule of practice, courts are required to have specific regard to the danger of convicting a person on the evidence of an accomplice alone, without corroboration; in cases before a jury, judges must expressly warn the jury of the danger. Failure to observe this rule is a good ground for quashing conviction.
CONFIDENTIAL