5
of Bribery Ordinance - Chapter 201 (see Annex 'C'). We foresee difficulty in that the exercise of these powers is dependent on the written authorization of the Commissioner in each particular case. Our experience, as no doubt your own, has shown time and time again that often in the initial stages of an enquiry, and indeed at any time thereafter, the Investigating Officer comes across situations where such powers are required quickly and unexpectedly. The requirement may only become apparent at the time of interview or immediate pursuit of suspects. Valuable evidence can be lost whilst obtaining a written authorisation.
It is appreciated that this sort of situation may present little difficulty to the shrewd and fully experienced investigator or when dealing with unsophisticated suspects. However, the situation could be far different in the case of inexperienced investigators or where the targets are of a different calibre, with immediate access to informed legal representation. During our short stay here we have already come across one case where a public officer declined to hand over an official book to a member of I.C.A.C. without a specific written authorisation, not, we hasten to add, in a spirit of non-cooperation but more as a desire to be absolutely 'correct'.
At the moment this is causing little difficulty as the Investigating Officers are also Policemen, but the complications that may arise in the future are not hard to visualise.
Should it be thought that the requirement for written authorisation is essential, we suggest consideration be given to providing this in the form of a certificate containing 'blanket' authority for issue to each Investigating Officer. This would be similar to the procedure used in the United Kingdom in relation to officers of the Customs & Excise who are given an all embracing warrant of authority under the Act and which incidentally gives them the power to seek the assistance of a police officer, if need be.
Section 13 seems to confer no power of seizure although sub-section (b) authorises the taking of copies. It has always been bad in English law to produce secondary evidence when original evidence is available. There are, of course, occasions when secondary evidence has to be produced, e.g. in respect of public documents, but primary evidence is always better. We note the subsection is not specific about how copies should be taken but recommend, in order to allow Defence Counsel the minimum of room to manoeuvre, that photo-copying be the method employed. This will require more sophisticated copying equipment within I.C.A.C. than is presently the case.