Let
1
- 9
over the proposed
Sir, I have, however, the following reservations
new section 17 in its present form:
First, as drafted, it imposes
it imposes a strict
a strict liability on the
defendant, allowing no possibility of any excuse, however
reasonable, as a defence. This, in my
in my view, is unjust,
since there may be cases where the defendant is genuinely
not at fault. For example, the purported written consent
of an organisation may prove to be invalid due to
procedural irregularities entirely unknown to, and beyond
the control of, the
serious
candidate. In view of the very
consequences of a conviction, which include
automatic disqualification
as an election candidate for
10 years
under section 19(1)(g)(ii) of
the Electoral
Provsions Ordinance (Cap 367), it is right in principle
that alase 17
clause
excuse.
should provide the defence of reasonable
Second,
further thought must be given to the
question of the
withdrawal of consent. A number of
consent be withdrawn
questions arise. Can a written
orally? If not, should a written withdrawal of consent
result in a legal obligation being placed on the candidate
to delete immediately all references to the sponsor's
support in the candidate's printed election material?
Should the candidate be required to go further and publish
the fact of withdrawal of support? Sir, whether these and
other subsidiary matters should or should not be provided
for in the legislation is a question which has troubled me
in the short time we have had to study the Bill. In the