B
.כיחטא שחסר
TUE 31 MAR 92 11:51
PG.05
CONFIDENTIAL
XCC(92)39
12
(c)
(d)
ensure that the evidence given by an accused in relation
to the loitering charge will not be admissible against him in any other criminal proceedings; and
enable the provision to allow only a police officer to require explanation from the suspect.
The Commission itself took a different view and in its final report published in July 1990 a substantial majority recommended that section 160(1) should not be retained, either in its present or an amended form. The Commission's reasons for its recommendations are set out at Annex B.
ASSESSMENT OF LRC'S AND LRC SUB-COMMITTEE'S
RECOMMENDATIONS
13
We have considered the LRC's and its sub-committee's recommendations carefully. We believe that the deletion of section 160(1) will deprive the police of an effective legal means to detect and prevent crime. In 1989, 402 people were charged under section 160(1), of whom 276 were convicted. In 1990, 332 were charged and 211 were convicted. In the first nine months of 1991, 234 were charged and 148 were convicted. The loss of such an effective crime prevention tool is also likely to cause serious public concern when most people are worried about the rising trend of crime.
LEGAL ISSUES
14
The sub-committee's recommendation has merit and is an improvement on existing law. However, it is likely to give rise to this difficulty both the present section 160(1) and the proposal by the sub- committee require an accused person to give an explanation of suspicious behaviour, either to the policeman at the scene or to the court at trial. This requirement risks infringing the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 11(1) of the BOR and the right of an accused person not to be compelled to confess guilt. To ensure consistency with the BOR Ordinance and the Covenant, this requirement should be removed. Otherwise, we risk infringing Article 11 of the BOR Ordinance in respect of the existing provision or Article 14 of the Covenant and Article VII(3) of the amended Letters Patent in respect of the new provision.
Executive Council