Evidence of accomplice.
Special powers of investi
gation.
I'resumption
of corruption
in certain
cases.
c.64, s.2.
9. Notwithstanding any rule of practice or procedure to the contrary in the event of a person being charged with an offence against section 3 or section 4, a judge shall not be required to direct the jury that it is dangerous to convict on the evidence of an accomplice without corroboration in a material particular implicating the accused, but in every such case, if the evidence of such accomplice, if believed, would warrant a conviction the jury shall be directed to convict if they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence of such accomplice is worthy of belief.
10. (1) Notwithstanding anything in any other law contained, the Attorney General if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence against this Ordinance has been committed by any person may in writing specially authorise a police officer not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police to investigate any bank account, share account or purchase account of such person and such authority shall be sufficient warrant for the production of such accounts and documents as may be required for scrutiny by the officer so authorised.
(2) Any person who fails to disclose such information to a police officer so authorised shall be guilty of an offence against this Ordinance and shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and to a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars.
11. Where in any proceedings against a person for an offence under this Ordinance, it is proved that any money, gift, or other consideration has been paid or given to or received by a person in 6 & 7 Gco. V, the employment whether permanent or temporary and whether paid or unpaid of His Majesty or any Government Department or a public body by or from a person, or agent of a person, holding or seeking to obtain a contract from His Majesty or from the Government of Hong Kong or from any Government Department or public body. the money, gift, or consideration shall be deemed to have been paid or given and received corruptly as such inducement or reward as is mentioned in section 3 or section 4 unless the contrary is proved.
Special rules of evidence
Repeal of
12.
In any trial or inquiry by a court in respect of an offence against this Ordinance, the fact that an accused person is in possession for which he cannot account or has disposed of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income or has, at or about the time of an alleged offence, obtained an accretion to his pecuniary resources or property for which he cannot satisfactorily account, may be proved and taken into consideration by such court notwithstanding any provision of any other law.
13. Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Misdemeanors Punishment Or- sections 2, 3 dinance, 1898, are hereby repealed.
and 4 of
Ordinance
No. 1 of 1898.
!
1.
5
—
Objects and Reasons.
The objects of the present Bill are—
(a) to assimilate the law of the Colony in relation to corruption to the law in force in the United Kingdom; and
(b) in view of the suspected prevalence of offences to lighten the respective tasks of investigating and proving offences.
2. In assimilating the law of the Colony to the law of the United Kingdom regard has nevertheless been had to the fact that the latter has grown up piecemeal and that it is considered desirable in Hong Kong that a public servant should be in at least as unfavourable a position as others and should be more severely punished. (See and compare the respective interpretations of public body in clause 2 of the Bill and section 1 of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, and the penalties provided by clause 5(2) of the Bill and by section 1(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906.
A
3. Corruption is by no means an easy charge to bring home as those who practise it are normally skilful in covering up their traces. The task is rendered more difficult by the fact that it is the practice for the judge to direct the jury where the prosecution evidence is that of an accomplice and his evidence is not corroborated that it is dangerous to conviet. The practice follows English law and has the obvious common sense foundation that such evidence should not lightly be accepted. It is however, believed that the word "dangerous" has an unfortunate effect on the minds of juries in the Colony who tend to treat it as equivalent to a direction to acquit. Clause 9 of the Bill seeks to readjust the balance by substituting a direction which is still fair to the accused without giving the jury a wrong impression."
4. It is a rule of evidence that the evidence must be confined to the issues before the Court. This rule often leads in corruption cases to the exclusion of evidence which to the lay mind raises a strong presumption of corrupt dealing, namely the unexplained enrichment of the person accused. Such evidence is excluded unless it can be shown that it is connected with the charge before the Court, e.g. that an accused paid money into his bank at or shortly after the time he received some corruptly. The honest man whose sources of income are constant should have little difficulty in explaining any unexpected accretion to his finances. It is accordingly considered that in offences for which provision is made by the Bill evidence of general enrichment for which no satisfactory account is forthcoming, should be admissible. (See clause 12 of the Bill, following section 2 of the Evidence (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1946 (Singapore) which in turn is based on the Indian Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1946).
5. Although corrupt persons are very often not foolish enough to pay large sums into their bank yet the way in which their account has been operated may afford considerable indication of their financial affairs and occasionally material which would make clause 12 of the Bill applicable. The same may be said of share or purchase accounts. Accordingly clause 10 of the Bill enables the Attorney General to authorise the investigation of such accounts by the police.
J. B. GRIFFIN,
Attorney General.
27