- 2 -
Remarks by AG on Privy Council's ruling
In response to media enquiries, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Chambers said:
The Privy Council in a landmark decision delivered today (Monday) upheld the constitutionality of Section 30(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.
Said the Attorney General, Mr Jeremy Mathews:
"This is a very important decision for the rule of law, as the Privy Council has recognised in its decision that S. 30(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance is an essential weapon in the ICAC's fight against corruption. "This decision should now put to rest any doubts that some members of the community may have had that S. 30(1) is contrary to the Bill of Rights Ordinance."
S. 30(1) provides:
"(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, discloses to any person who is the subject of an investigation in respect of an offence alleged or suspected to have been committed by him under this Ordinance the fact that he is subject to such an investigation or any details of such investigation, or discloses to any other person either the identity of any person who is the subject of such an investigation or any details of such an investigation, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of $20,000 and to imprisonment for 1 year."
In allowing the appeal by Ming Pao Newspapers Ltd & Others v. Attorney General of Hong Kong, the Privy Council construed the word "investigation" in section 30(1) to cover only an investigation into a particular suspect. Where, as in this case, no suspect had been identified but the investigation was general in nature, the section does not apply and the defendants had committed no offence.
However, on the constitutional question of whether S.30(1) is consistent with the Bill of Rights Ordinance, the Privy Council ruled in favour of the Hong Kong Government that this section was entirely consistent with the Bill of Rights. They noted that it was for the Hong Kong Courts and the Hong Kong legislature to decide whether the restrictions imposed by S. 30(1) were necessary under Article 16 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance. The Privy Council held "It cannot be denied that there is a pressing social need to stamp out the evil of corruption in Hong Kong. Investigation by the ICAC is an important means of achieving that end and the protection of the integrity of such investigation is essential."
The Privy Council decided that there should be no order for costs against the Hong Kong Government.
End