Mr. SCEATS, Counsel for the Commission, also had interviews with members of the Target Committee, the Com- missioner of Police, and the Director of the Anti-Corruption Office; and he reported to me on the substance of those interviews.
5.
The main sources of information as to the history of the present Prevention of Bribery Ordinance were the Attorney General's legislation files. As regards the working of the Ordinance since it came into force in May 1971 and the organization of the Anti-Corruption Office, my main source of information was a report by the Director of the Anti-Corruption Office-Mr. MORRIN. Initially, a good deal of time was spent studying a considerable number of investigation files; but I found that it was quite impossible for me, in the time available, to do anything in the nature of a “case audit” covering a period of over 2 years. However, I was able to digest sufficient material to enable me to form definite views as to how the Ordinance might, with advantage, be amended in a number of respects. I shall also make certain recommendations regarding Colonial Regulations 54-66, as read with section 8 of the Pensions Ordinance. I shall also express a view as to the future of the Anti-Corruption Office, the Advisory Committee on Corruption and the Target Committee on Corruption. As regards those aspects of my inquiries, I am much indebted to the Establishment Secretary and the Attorney General who have made available to me, for perusal, a number of their files.
The Ordinance-its history
6.
Current Arrangements
Bribery of public officers has always been an offence; and the Common Law is well summarised in Russell on Crime (12th Ed.) Vol. I. The learned editors say (p. 381):—
"Bribery is the receiving or offering any undue reward by or to any person whatsoever, in a public office, in order to influence his behaviour in office, and incline him to act contrary to the known rules of honesty and integrity ... It is an indictable misdemeanour at common law to bribe or to attempt to bribe any person holding a public office, and for any person in an official position corruptly to use the power or interest of his position for rewards or promises, by asking for or accepting a bribe... It is immaterial whether the office is an office of state, or in a public department, or is judicial, or ministerial, or municipal, or parochial."
7. The common law of England has been in force in Hong Kong since 1843; but in 1898 the Legislature thought fit to enact the Misdemeanours Punishment Ordinance, sections 3 and 4 of which appear to have done no more than put into convenient statutory form the common law rules summarized in Russell.
That was the state of the law in Hong Kong until 1948 when it was decided to incorporate into our statute law the main provisions of the statute law of England dealing with corruption. These were, to a large extent, embodied in the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916. And so, the Hong Kong Legislature enacted the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance which was Cap. 215 in the “Griffin” (1951) Edition of our laws. A copy of that Ordinance is annexure "B" to this report.
9. After some years, it became evident that Cap. 215, modelled as it was on English legislation, was making no real impact on the problem of corruption in Hong Kong. As a result of representations made by the Com- missioner of Police, it was decided that officers should visit Singapore and Ceylon to report on the anti-corruption laws in force in these countries. The Hon. D. T. E. ROBERTS (Attorney General) visited Ceylon and reported to the Governor on 18th April 1968. Mr. F. T. M. JONES (Crown Counsel) and Chief Superintendent J. C. Law (then officer in charge of the Anti-Corruption Branch of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force) visited Singapore. Mr. JONES' report is dated 13th March 1968. Mr. Law's report is dated 6th April 1968.
10. Following receipt of these reports, on 2nd May 1968 a working party was appointed. Its terms of reference were:
"To consider amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance, based on the situation in Ceylon
and Singapore as reported upon by the Attorney General, Mr. Law and Mr. Jones."
The working party were of the opinion that it would be impossible to give effect to their recommendations by amending Cap. 215. They therefore expressed their views in the form of a draft Bill which incorporated a number of provisions similar to those in force in Singapore, Ceylon and Malaysia.
11. The report of the working party was accepted in principle by Government; and Counsel for the Crown in the Law Drafting section of the Attorney General's Chambers prepared a draft Prevention of Bribery Bill. Before it was presented for the consideration of the Legislative Council, the views of a large number of individuals and official bodies were sought. These included the Legal, and other, advisers to the Secretary of State in London, the two branches of the Legal profession in Hong Kong, the Advisory Committee on Corruption, and
2
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.