TNAG-0259-FCO40-295-Legislation-for-prevention-of-bribery-in-Hong-Kong-1970 — Page 71

28

of finding out what instructions an accused has given to his legal advisers for the purpose of any judicial proceedings begun or in contemplation, and this is expressly so provided in the clause.

24. Clauses 16 and 17 regulate the entry and search of premises by persons conducting investigations, the former clause being concerned with the premises of public bodies and the latter with other premises. Lawyers' offices are not liable to entry and search under these provisions except if the lawyer or his clerk or servant is the subject of the investigation.

25. Clause 18 will empower a magistrate to require any person who, in the course of an investigation, is about to leave the Colony, to furnish bail or to commit him to prison, until he does so, for up to 28 days. This provision is intended to prevent suspects from escaping from the Colony as soon as investiga- tions start. An appeal will lie from the magistrate's decision.

Evidence (Part IV).

26. By clause 19 it will not be a defence to show that the giving or accepting of an advantage is customary in Hong Kong in the particular profession, trade, vocation or calling concerned.

27. Although, as indicated in paragraph 20, it will not be an offence for the suspect himself to refuse to give a statement or make a declaration when called upon to do so by notice under clause 14, if the investigations lead to his prosecution for an offence under this Bill, any such statement or declaration which he may have given or made, and also his refusal to give a state- ment or make a declaration, will, under clause 20, be admissible in evidence at his trial and may be made the subject of comment by the prosecution or the court.

28. Clause 21 will enable evidence of unexplained resources to be given in support of a charge under Part II. Such evidence may be treated as tending to substantiate the truth of testimony that the accused accepted or solicited a bribe and as showing that the bribe was accepted or solicited as an inducement or reward.

29. Clause 22 modifies the law as to accomplices which at present obliges a court to have specific regard to the danger of convicting a person on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. If a person is accused of accepting a bribe, the person who gave him the bribe would

would be regarded as an accomplice, and vice versa. Clause 22 modifies the rule by pro- viding that the person who gave or, as the case may be, received