·
13 -
Prevention of Bribery Ordinance
Following is the speech by the Attorney General, the Hon Jeremy Mathews, in reply to the Hon Christine Loh's amendment to section 30(1A) and (2) of the in the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance in the Legislative Council today (Wednesday):
Mr Chairman,
Under the amendment proposed by the Hon Christine Loh, section 30 would cease to apply where a notice is served on the subject person under section 14(1)(a) or (b); where his residence has been searched under a warrant issued under section 17; or where he has been required to surrender a travel document under section 17A. The Administration strongly opposes this amendment, because of its possible impact both on a suspect's reputation and on ICAC investigations.
Subject's reputation
In the three situations I have described there is still a need to protect the subject person's reputation. There is no reason why section 30 should cease to apply simply because a person has been required to give details of his assets. Needless to say, that person may be entirely innocent and may, by complying with the notice, establish this to the satisfaction of the ICAC. A search of the suspect's residence may reveal no evidence of criminality and, if the suspect is required to surrender his travel document, he may subsequently get it back. In none of these situations is there any compelling reason why details of the investigation should be freely disclosed, and the subject person's reputation ruined. However, if the subject person wishes to disclose details of the investigation; or there has been serious ICAC misconduct; or there is a serious threat to public order or to the security of Hong Kong or to the health or safety of the public, disclosure will be possible under the amendment I am moving.
Ms Loh has argued that section 30 should cease to apply if any of the three events I have mentioned has occurred, since the same degree of suspicion is required for those events as for the arrest of the subject person. With respect, this is not an adequate justification. A suspect's reputation should not be exposed to attack merely because there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that he has committed a corruption offence. As I have explained earlier this afternoon, there are valid reasons for protecting the reputation of those under ICAC investigation. That protection should only be removed if there is a compelling reason to do so.