TNAG-1363-FCO40-1809-Hong-Kong-Hansard-reports-and-minutes-of-the-meetings-of-the-1985 — Page 46

QUESTION-NO. -10

PEPLY BY THE HON. MR. MICHAEL THOMAS CMG, QC, ATTORNEY GENERAL

•

-

TO A QUESTION FROM DR. THE HON. RICHARD LAI

IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL MEETING-OF 20-NOVEMBER 1985

QUESTION

REPLY

IN VIEW OF THE POTENTIAL DANGER TO THE PUBLIC, WOULD THE GOVERNMENT EXPLAIN WHY IN THE RECENT INCIDENT INVOLVING THE POISONING OF SOFT DRINKS ON SALE IN A

LOCAL SUPERMARKET, NO ANNOUNCEMENT WAS GIVEN TO THE MATTER UNTIL AFTER THE SUSPECTS HAD BEEN ARRESTED?

SIR, I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS QUESTION REFERS TO TWO

AMATEURISH ATTEMPTS IN THE LAST YEAR TO EXTORT MONEY FROM A SOFT

DRINK MANUFACTURER.

IN THE FIRST BLACKMAIL ATTEMPT, EIGHT BOTTLES OF SOFT

DRINK ON SALE IN A LOCAL SUPERMARKET WERE AFFECTED WITH NOTHING MORE

THAN PINHOLES. THE SECOND ATTEMPT DID INVOLVE THE DISCOVERY OF TWELVE

BOTTLES OF ADULTERATED SOFT DRINKS

-

BUT THE POLICE WERE QUICKLY ABLE

TO ESTABLISH THAT THE AMOUNTS OF POISON INTRODUCED WERE SO MINUTE

THAT EVEN IF DRUNK BY A CHILD, IT WOULD ONLY HAVE CAUSED MILD REACTIONS.

HAD THE DANGER TO THE PUBLIC BEEN MORE SERIOUS, A WARNING

/ WOULD CERTAINLY ...