308
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
asked for information in these matters is the man who is likely in the end to get into trouble. He is here compelled to answer any question, even though the answer may tend to incriminate him. Again, as the section is worded, any person not in the liquor trade, who the Superintendent may believe to be in possession of information required by him, would be liable to give such information on pain of a penalty. To my mind, the system is open to serious objections.
The hon. the learned Attorney General, in introducing the Bill, pointed out that though the proposed power is perhaps a little unusual, it has a precedent in the Tobacco Ordinance which has apparently worked satisfactorily for the last thirteen years. It seems to me that the fact that the power already exists in another Ordinance is not sufficient reason for its multiplication. I hope that when the Tobacco Ordinance comes to be amended, opportunity may be taken to repeal the relevant section. The existence of such a law on our Statute Book is, to say the least of it, very undesirable.
The Hon. Attorney General also said that in the proposed Bill two restrictions have been added which ought, in his opinion, to relieve anyone of the fear that the section might have an injurious effect. The first restriction is that the power is given only to the Superintendent and to such revenue officers as the Superintendent may authorise in writing for the purpose. The second restriction is that the power shall not extend to the questioning of any person who has been charged under the Ordinance with any offence, or in whose case the Superintendent has decided to prosecute under the Ordinance. I submit, with due deference, that these restrictions do not remove the objections. Whether the power is restricted to cer- tain officials or not, the fact remains that it violates the fundamental principle of British law and British justice. The second restriction is no sufficient protection to the public because even though the Superintendent may not have decided to prosecute at the time when he puts the questions, the answers to his questions may incriminate a person, which may lead to his prosecution. I beg, therefore, to propose that the section be deleted.
HON. SIR HENRY POLLOCK.-Sir, I much regret to say that I do not agree with the view which has been expressed by my hon. friend, Dr. Kotewall. Perhaps it may be said that in a certain sense I am prejudiced in this matter because, unless my recollection fails me, as acting Attorney General last year, I was the draughtsman of this new section 87A., without the beneficent provisos at the end which have been recently added by my hon. friend, Sir Joseph Kemp. I think, Sir, that in cases of trying to prevent frauds on the revenue, the great object which one should bear in mind is the question of making the law efficient and, I think, that this clause 87A tends in the direction of making the law more efficient and, therefore, I submit that as the clause stands it should be passed by this Council. It has been pointed out by the Attorney General in moving the first reading of this Bill that a precedent actually exists for such a clause in the Tobacco Ordinance of 1916. In fact the provision in 87A of
24