against disclosure of privileged information. Section 15 is not, however, intended as a means of finding out what instructions an accused has given to his legal advisers for the purpose of obtaining legal advice on any judicial proceedings begun or in contemplation, and this is expressly so provided.
28. Sections 16 and 17 regulate the entry and search of premises by persons conducting investigations, the former section 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 unless the lawyer or his clerk or servant is the subject of the investigation.
29. Section 17A was enacted on 1st August 1973 following a recommendation in my first report. On the application of the Director of the Anti-Corruption Office, a magistrate may, by written notice, require a person who is the subject of an investigation in respect of an offence alleged or suspected to have been committed by him under the Ordinance, to surrender to the Director his travel documents. If he fails to do so immediately, he may be arrested and committed to prison unless he surrenders the document when he appears before the magistrate. He may be imprisoned for up to 28 days; but there is provision for his release at any time if the travel document is surrendered.
30. Section 18 empowers a magistrate to require any person who, in the course of an investigation, is about to leave the Colony, to furnish bail or commit him to prison until he does so, for up to 28 days. The provision was intended to prevent suspects from escaping from Hong Kong as soon as investigations start.
31. Part IV of the Ordinance deals with evidence. Section 19 makes it clear that, in any proceedings for an offence under the Ordinance, it is not a defence to show that the giving or accepting of an advantage is "customary" in the particular profession, trade, vocation, or calling.
32. As I have said, as section 14 stands at present, the suspect commits no offence at all by ignoring the Attorney General's notice under that section. However, if the investigations lead to his prosecution for an offence under the Ordinance, any statement or declaration which he may have given or made, and his refusal to give a statement or make a declaration, is admissible in evidence at his trial and may be made the subject of comment by the prosecution or the court. [section 20].
33. Section 21 enables evidence of unexplained resources to be given in support of a charge under Part II other than a charge under section 10. It says that such evidence may be treated as tending to substantiate the truth of testimony that the accused solicited or accepted an advantage and as showing that the advantage was solicited or accepted as an inducement or reward; and, it is not only evidence of unexplained resources in the possession of the accused which may be tendered. Under the section, and for the purpose of corroboration under the section, the accused is presumed to be in possession of pecuniary resources or property or to have obtained an accretion thereto, where such resources are held by
"any other person whom, having regard to his relationship to the accused or to any other circumstances, there is reason to believe is or was holding such resources or property or obtained such accretion in trust for or otherwise on behalf of the accused or as a gift from the accused".
Wives and near relatives, bankers, etc. might well be held to fall within this category.
34. Section 22 modifies the law as to accomplices which, generally speaking, obliges a court of law 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 be regarded as an accomplice and vice versa. Section 22 modifies the rule of law by providing that the person who gave or received the bribe shall not be regarded as an accomplice by reason only of the fact that he paid money to, or received money from, the accused.
35. Section 23 empowers a court, at the request of the Attorney General, to inform a person who has committed an offence under Part II, that if he gives full and true evidence of the matter he will not be prosecuted. Section 24 provides that the burden of establishing lawful authority or reasonable excuse will be upon the accused. Section 25 provides that, in a prosecution under section 4 (which deals with bribery affecting a public servant's official duties) or section 5 (which deals with public contracts and allied sub-contracts), if it is proved that the accused gave or accepted an advantage, there will be a rebuttable presumption that he gave or accepted the advantage for the reason alleged in the charge. This section is not dissimilar to section 11 of Cap. 215, except that the presumption of corruption raised by that section was limited to cases involving public contracts.
36. In criminal trials, the general rule is that although the prosecution may not comment to the jury on an accused person's failure to give evidence on oath, the judge may do so. But, recent decisions have demon- strated that this is fraught with dangers. Section 26 makes it clear that "notwithstanding any law or practice to the contrary", so far as bribery trials are concerned, the judge may comment to the jury on the accused's failure to give evidence on oath.
5
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.