TNAG-1555-FCO40-2119-Broadcasting-in-Hong-Kong-1986 — Page 105

52

knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he is guilty of an offence. It is not clear whether section 32 covers statements taken by the Police which they require a person to swear to. In other words, it is not clear whether such statements taken by the Police are "required or authorised by law".

6.19

Option - The option is that section 32 be amended so that it is abundantly clear that the sanctions of section 32 apply to the statements taken by the Police from doubtful witnesses whom they require to be sworn.

Section 39 of the Crimes Ordinance, Chapter 200

6.20

It is sometimes difficult to prove that an individual knows that a statement is false or that he does not believe it to be true. Section 39 of the Crimes Ordinance penalises wilful making of contradictory statements on oath, whether or not the respective truth or falsehood of the statements can be ascertained, but it is limited to statements made in judicial proceedings. It would not presently cover sworn statements made prior to criminal trial.

6.21

Option - The option is to extend the terms of section 39 to include sworn statements made prior to trial, by deeming them to be statements made in judicial proceedings, for the purpose of that section. Thus a person who made contradictory statements in judicial proceedings [in this extended sense] would be liable to considerable penalties. It would then be difficult for a witness to depart from a sworn witness statement.

Advantages and disadvantages

6.22

Advantages The three sections involved

[sections 32, 33 and 39] only punish a wilful misstatement, not an accidental misstatement or a statement brought about by confusion or a lapse of memory. It is surely right that when a witness makes a statement there should be proper sanctions available to punish him if he has made wilful or deliberate falsehoods. As explained, it is extremely difficult currently to prosecute persons who make false or contradictory witness statements. The options outlined would in themselves be strong incentives to witnesses to relate the truth during the whole criminal process.

6.23

It is ultimately the responsibility of the investigating officers to take such operational steps as they feel necessary to counter allegations that they used improper tactics or unlawful pressure upon individuals to endorse statements which would be covered by section 33 or sworn statements, which would ultimately be within the contemplation of section 32 and section 39 of the Crimes Ordinance.

Page 105Page 106