HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
香港立法局
18 October 1989
一九八九年十月十八日
25
MRS. TU: Sir, in paragraph 6 of his reply the Attorney General said that in the light of the matters before him, it would not be appropriate for Mr. HARRIS to perform his duties and Mr. HARRIS had to resign immediately. Since the Attorney General had these doubts and danger to young girls appeared to exist, did the Attorney General not consider immediately obtaining further opinion from other counsel? Did he consider immediate action by calling in the Bar Association, or did he question the police as to why they discontinued the operation?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: I have already made clear, Sir, that at that point, based upon the original advice, there was no question of criminality. I have been advised that there was no crime with which Mr. HARRIS could be charged. As for calling in the Bar, I have already made clear in my main answer that I had already formed the view that certain matters should be communicated to the Bar and indeed that was done. I did not call for a second opinion. I saw no cause to do so. Nor did I contact the police to ask why they had discontinued the investigation. The papers were sent to me for advice upon the completion of the police operation.
MR. MARTIN LEE: Sir, may I first congratulate the Attorney General for having the courage to accept full responsibility for this incident. But may I ask him whether he and members of the Prosecution Unit of his chambers agreed with the first opinion given by the Queen's Counsel concerned that there was no crime with which Mr. E. C. HARRIS could be charged, and whether leading counsel concerned was asked in the brief for the first opinion to consider specifically whether there was evidence to substantiate any alleged offence or offences of incitement to procure an under-age girl for unlawful sexual intercourse, and if not, why not?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, I had no reason to question or to disagree with the original opinion from leading counsel. That was also the view of the Director of Public Prosecutions. As to the second part of Mr. LEE's question I have made clear that when the papers were sent to leading counsel for his opinion, he was asked in the broadest possible terms whether on those papers there was any crime with which Mr. HARRIS could be charged. He was not asked to turn his mind to any specific area of the law. I thought it right that the counsel should be given all the papers that we had and that he should take his view untrammelled by any views that we might have formed.