NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
W(B)L 51-7406
by the prosecution, even though the failure
may be due to circumstances beyond the control of the accused. In most, if not all, cases, the Attorney-General could call upon the spouse or parents themselves to provide the required information and it would appear preferable for him to do so. It is appreciated that difficul- ties may arise in cases where the parents or spouse live outside the jurisdiction of the
Hong Kong courts, but this possible difficulty could not, in my view, justify the very wide provisions of the two sub-clauses in question.
12. Having regard to the above observations, I would see no objection to clause 14(1)(a), provided that sub-clauses 14(1)(a)(i) and (iii) were each amended by the deletion of the words, "his spouse, parents or children".
13. Clause 15. I note that this clause has
been redrafted with a view to protecting "privileged" communications (as between legal adviser and client) connected with judicial proceedings. Sub-clause 15(4) now provides a limited safeguard against the compulsory dis- closure of privileged information, in that it
exempts a legal adviser from any requirement to disclose any privileged information or communi- cation which has come to his knowledge "for the
purpose of any proceedings, begun or in contem- plation, before a court". However, the meaning of the words quoted above is vague and I am advised that, even under the clause as it now stands, a solicitor could be compelled to disclose facts vital to his client's defence
before any criminal proceedings had been begun, or could be said to be contemplated, against the latter. You mention that the provisions
of the clause, when read with those of clauses 13(1)(b), 14(1)(a) and 14(2), go no further than section 16(7) of the Finance Act, 1962. However, section 16(7) is very restric-
tive and its primary purpose is to enable the
/Commissioners
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.