As
form then I suggest that clause 20 (b) should be amended so that comment may not be made by the court or the prosecution if the accused person's failure is due to matters beyond his control. regards para. (c) I can only repeat what has already been said at (3), namely this paragraph is an unsual invasion of privacy.
(iii) Clause 13 has not been amended, as requested and
agreed by Hong Kong, so that the very wide definition of public servant in clause 2 will not apply to clause 13. As at present drafted a nightsoil remover or dog killer employed by the Hong Kong municipality could be authorised to investigate an offence under this Bill. It is no answer to say that the Attorney- General would not authorise such persons. As long as the power is there there is always the possibility that some Attorney-General might do so.
If the power
(iv)
is not to be used, why retain it? I can only think this is an oversight.
•
The amendment to clause 14 (4) is satisfactory in that as it is now drafted an accused person is not guilty of a criminal offence if he fails to comply with a notice by the Attorney-General requiring him to supply certain information, but for the reasons which I have given in para. (ii) above, the new clause 20 is objectionable.
(v) The amendment made to clause 15 (4) does not in my
view go as far as is required. To provide that information or communication which comes to a legal adviser's knowledge for the purposes of any proceedings begun or in contemplation before a court is too restricted. A person involved in a police investigation may go to his legal adviser before it can be said that any proceedings are in contemplation. I suggest that there be substituted for the words "which came to his knowledge" to the end of the sub- clause the following: "which he considers may be required in defence of his client in any criminal proceedings before a court. I appreciate that such an amendment would nullify to a large extent the provisions of clayse 15. But then, in my view, clause 15 should apply at all to "privileged information".
(vi) The amendment to clause 18 seems to be satisfactory
(vii) Clause 25. This new clause goes considerably
further than section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916. Under that section if it is proved that an advantage has been paid or given to or received by a person in Crown service, etc. by or from a person or agent holding or seeking to obtain a contract from Her Majesty, etc. then it is presumed that the advantage has been paid or given and received corruptly as such inducement or reward as is mentioned in the Act unless the contrary is proved. Whereas under the proposed clause 25 all that has to be proved is that the accused gave or accepted an
/advantage