- 15 -
Prevention of Bribery Ordinance: committee stage
Following is the speech by the Attorney General, the Hon Jeremy Mathews, in reply to members' committee stage amendments to section 30(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance in the Legislative Council today (Wednesday):
The Hon Selina Chow's proposal
Mr Chairman, the only difference between Mrs Chow's amendment and my own is that her amendment does not plug the loophole that I have mentioned. It would allow disclosures of details of a general investigation, no matter how harmful the disclosure may be to the investigation.
K
I would ask members to consider the example in which a report is made to the ICAC of the most serious corruption by a member of a senior group of Government officials corruption striking at the heart of good government. Suppose the report does not identify a particular person, but gives information that seems credible, concerning a unit within a certain Government department. The ICAC begin to investigate. They uncover clear evidence of corruption but have not yet identified any particular suspect. Then a newspaper publishes details of the investigation. The guilty party flees from Hong Kong taking his ill-gotten gains with him. Just consider what effect that would have on the confidence of the community and their faith in the ICAC.
If members support Mrs Chow's amendment they will be saying that they are content for such publications to take place, regardless of the consequences. I strongly urge members not to support Mrs Chow's amendment.
The Hon Albert Ho's proposal
The amendment proposed by the Hon Albert Ho would also allow disclosures in respect of general investigations. For the reasons I have just given, I would urge members to reject it.
There is, however, a further aspect to Mr Ho's amendment. The effect of that amendment would be to limit restrictions contained in section 30(1) to disclosures which are "likely to cause prejudice to the investigation." This is unacceptable for two reasons. Firstly, it would deprive the section of its role in protecting the reputation of suspects. Secondly, it would inadequately protect the integrity of investigations.
Let me quote from the judgment of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in the Ming Pao case.