XN000022-1985-06-12 — Page 24

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 1985

22

AMENDMENT AND DELETION SUGGESTED

*****

UNOFFICIAL MEMBER THE HON PAULINE NG CALLED FOR THE AMENDMENT OF CLAUSE 16 AND DELETION OF CLAUSE 19(A) OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES) BILL IN THE COUNCIL MEETING TODAY (WEDNESDAY).

SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL, MRS NG SAID THE WORDING OF CLAUSE 16 OF THE CURRENT BILL MIGHT GIVE PEOPLE THE WRONG IMPRESSION THAT THE WITNESS ENJOYED AN IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION AND THAT EVEN IF THERE WAS INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE THE WITNESS COULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE.

+HENCE, CLAUSE 16 SHOULD BE AMENDED TO STIPULATE THAT THE STATEMENT MADE BY A WITNESS TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE AT COURT IN A CHARGE OF CRIMINAL OFFENCE OR CIVIL LIABILITIES AGAINST HIM, BUT HE MAY STILL BE PROSECUTED IF THERE IS OTHER EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT HE IS GUILTY OF SUCH AN OFFENCE, SHE SAID.

+THIS PROVISION MAY ALSO BE AMENDED ALONG THE LINES OF SECTION 44A OF THE SUPREME COURT ORDINANCE, SHE ADDED.

REFERRING TO CLAUSE 19(A) OF THE BILL, MRS NG SAID IT COULD BE DELETED AS IT WAS SIMILAR TO SECTION 4 OF THE PREVENTION OF BRIBERY ORDINANCE (CAP 201).

+SOME MEMBERS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION HAVE CRITICISED THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE BILL TO PREVENT LEGISLATIVE COUNCILLORS FROM ACCEPTING ADVANTAGES.

+AS A MATTER OF FACT, LEGISLATIVE COUNCILLORS ARE INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC SERVANTS REFERRED TO IN THE PREVENTION OF BRIBERY ORDINANCE, AND ARE ALREADY RESTRICTED BY LAW TO RECEIVE ADVANTAGES FROM THE PUBLIC.

+ IT IS THEREFORE UNNECESSARY TO RAISE THE SAME POINT AGAIN IN THIS BILL, SHE SAID.

1

1

/23