HE IS, OR IS HE NOT, IN WHICH CASE HE OUGHT TO GIVE FULL PARTICULARS OF THE MATTER WHICH HE WISHES ME TO DEAL WITH.
GOVERNOR :
MR DESMOND LEE, WAS WHAT YOU WERE SAYING A QUESTION?
MR DESMOND LEE :
# DON'T THINK WHAT I SAND WAS A HYPOTHETICAL CASE. THERE WERE SUCH
STATEMENTS REPORTED IN THE LOCAL PRESS.
GOVERNOR :
WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR QUESTION, MR LEE, COULD YOU PUT IN YOUR
QUEST NON?
MR DESMOND LEE:
THE QUESTION IS, THE RUMOURS REFERRED TO ARE STATEMENTS THAT DIRECT
ELECTIONS IN 1988 WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE JOINT DECLARATION AND
THESE STATEMENTS WERE PUBLISHED H3N MANY NEWS MEDHA, WAS ASKING THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL WHETHER OR NOT THESE RUMOURS CONSTITUTE RUMOUR
MONGERING IN MY EARLIER QUESTION.
OD
ATTORNEY GENERAL :
THE QUEST ON WHETHER OR NOT DIRECT ELECT MONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE
JOINT DECLARATION MS A QUESTION OF OPINION, NOT A QUESTION OF FACT
AT ALL. IN MY GUIDELINES I'VE MADE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT
CONCERNED WRTH MATTERS OF OPINION. EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO EXPRESS
THEIR OPINION.
MR MART÷WN LEE :
SIR, WHAT WERE THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH LED THE LEARNED ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO PROSPECT OF SECURING A
CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 27 IN RELATION TO THESE MATTERS. IS IT
BECAUSE HE TAKES THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO FALSE NEWS PUBLISHED, OR
WAS HE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT PUBLICATION, OR WAS
HE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO LIKELIHOOD OF CAUSING ALARM TO A
SECTION OF THE PUBLIC?
ATTORNEY GENERAL :
SIR, NT WAS NONE OF THOSE ALTERNATIVES SO CONVENIENTLY OFFERED BY
MR LEE. MAY ANSWER IS THAT DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING IN THE QUESTION COME ANYWHERE NEAR THE INTENDED SCOPE OF THIS OFFENCE. THAT
IS THE REASON I'VE GIVEN TO THIS COUNCIL.
MR JACKIE CHAN:
SIR, WOULD THE ADMINISTRATION KINDLY CONFIRM THAT STATEMENT OF A POLITICALLY-SENSITIVE NATURE WOULD NOT BE FALSELY ATTRIBUTED TO
IPERSONS