WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1980
10
SIXTHLY, THE UNOFFICIALS' AD HOC GROUP WAS TOLD THAT THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO DETAIN A PERSON FOUND IN PREMISES BEING SEARCHED WAS NO NEW POWER AND THAT IT ALREADY EXISTED IN SEPARATE ORDINANCES FOR THE POLICE AS WELL AS FOR THE PREVENTIVE SERVICE.
IT WAS NOW AGREED HOWEVER THAT THE POWER OF DETENTION SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THREE HOURS FROM THE MOMENT OF ICAC ENTERING THE PREMISES.
SEVENTHLY, THE TIME LIMIT FOR BRINGING SUMMARY PROSECUTIONS IN REGARD TO CERTAIN OFFENCES FROM SIX MONTHS TO THREE YEARS WAS AMENDED TO TWO YEARS. IN ADDITION, ONE OF THE OFFENCES WAS DELETED FROM THE LIST.
HOWEVER MR LO SAID THE POSITION WAS UNSATISFACTORY BECAUSE TRIVIAL OFFENCES REALLY OUGHT TO BE DEALT WITH WITHIN SIX MONTHS AND THE MORE SERIOUS OFFENCES OUGHT NOT TO HAVE A TWO YEARS' LIMIT.
HE REVEALED THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD RECONSIDER THE LIST AND DO AWAY WITH THE PRESENT UNHAPPY STOP-GAP MEASURE.
THE LAST POINT CONCERNED THE PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT OF CONVICTED PERSONS IN A PARTICULAR BUSINESS OR A CLASS OF BUSINESS FOR UP TO SEVEN YEARS.
WHILE IT IS POSSIBLE TO LOOK UPON IT AS NO MORE THAN A PART OF THE PUNISHMENT, MR LO CONTENDED THAT IT WAS NOT THE REAL
INTENT.
THE UNOFFICIALS OBTAINED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S AGREEMENT THAT WHERE THE CONVICTED PERSON WAS EMPLOYED AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENCE BY A COMPANY THE PROHIBITION IS LIMITED TO THAT PARTICULAR COMPANY OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES.
+HOWEVER, WE AGREED THAT THE PROHIBITION MAY COVER EMPLOYMENT BY ANY OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC BODIES OR PARTNERSHIP OR FIRM,+ MR LO SAID.
TWO OTHER UNOFFICIAL COUNCILLORS SPOKE ON THE BILL.
THE HON FRANCIS TIEN SAID THERE WERE CERTAIN POINTS IN THE ORIGINAL PROPOSALS WHICH NEEDED CLARIFICATION IN ORDER TO REMOVE ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT,
ON THE DEFINITIONS OF +BANKER'S BOOKS,+ +COMPANY BOOKS AND +DOCUMENT+ WHICH INVESTIGATING OFFICERS OF THE ICAC MAY SEIZE FOR PURPOSES OF INVESTIGATION, HE URGED THE GOVERNMENT TO ASSURE THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED WITH EXTREME CARE AND DISCRETION.
+NO DOUBT WITH MODERN PHOTOCOPYING PROCESSES, EXTRACTS OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION COULD BE MADE WITHOUT THE ACTUAL IMPOUNDING OF THE DOCUMENTS, FOR PURPOSES OF INVESTIGATION BUT NOT AS EVIDENCE IN COURT.
WITH REGARD TO THE DEFINITION OF +EMPLOYER IN RESPECT OF PERMISSION GIVEN TO AN EMPLOYEE TO ACCEPT AN ADVANTAGE, MR TIEN NOTED THAT IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE EMPLOYER IS HIMSELF A SENIOR EMPLOYEE OR A PAID EXECUTIVE OF A PUBLIC ORGANISATION, THE POSSIBILITY OF COLLUSION COULD EXIST.
/HE SUGGESTED