TNAG-1106-FCO40-1356-Narcotics-problem-in-Hong-Kong-1981 — Page 13

AIR M

Yr. Ref.: HKK 385/1

CONFIDENTIAL

Our Ref.: (96) in NDD 1/2 II (TC 17/77)

R.D. Clift Esq.,

Hong Kong & General Department, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London SW1A 2AH England.

Enlis

Mr. Willems for disaison

(by bag)

with LA

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT Stopl

HONG KONG,

9th October. 1981.

MICK 385/1

звон

230CT 1981

A Tel

Dear Mr. Clift,

• CGE

No

! 28/10

PG

Pas 28/10

The Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Ordinance 1981

Thank you for your letter of 17th September 1981 addressed to Sir Jack Cater, Chief Secretary, in which you drew our attention to the comments of your Legal Counsellor on the above Ordinance. Sir Jack has asked me to reply on his behalf.

I have consulted the Attorney General on this matter

and his views are :-

The offence created by s. 49D(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Ordinance (Ord. No. 65/81) is committed by a person who discloses records kept by the Registry or a reporting agency, or who supplies information obtained from any such record.

A prosecution could only be brought if there were proof that the accused had, or obtained, access to information in the records of the Registry or a reporting agency and disclosed those records, or information from them. If such proof existed I do not myself think that the law should make an exception for disclosure of convictions ascertained from those records, though that is a policy matter on which views may differ.

A prosecution brought under s. 49D(1)(a) (as it stands) against a person for disclosing information that was public knowledge, in reliance on the fact that the information happened also to be recorded by the Registry or a reporting agency, would in my view be misconceived. "

Sex (10)

I hope this answers the points raised by your Legal Counsellor, but if there is any other question on this Ordinance I would be obliged to clarify further.

CML/mw

Yours sincerely,

(C.M. Leung)

Commissioner for Narcotics (Ag.)