TNAG-1611-FCO40-2214-Minutes-and-Hansards-of-the-Legislative-Council-of-Hong-Kong-1987 — Page 193

Let

1

- 9

over the proposed

Sir, I have, however, the following reservations

new section 17 in its present form:

First, as drafted, it imposes

it imposes a strict

a strict liability on the

defendant, allowing no possibility of any excuse, however

reasonable, as a defence. This, in my

in my view, is unjust,

since there may be cases where the defendant is genuinely

not at fault. For example, the purported written consent

of an organisation may prove to be invalid due to

procedural irregularities entirely unknown to, and beyond

the control of, the

serious

candidate. In view of the very

consequences of a conviction, which include

automatic disqualification

as an election candidate for

10 years

under section 19(1)(g)(ii) of

the Electoral

Provsions Ordinance (Cap 367), it is right in principle

that alase 17

clause

excuse.

should provide the defence of reasonable

Second,

further thought must be given to the

question of the

withdrawal of consent. A number of

consent be withdrawn

questions arise. Can a written

orally? If not, should a written withdrawal of consent

result in a legal obligation being placed on the candidate

to delete immediately all references to the sponsor's

support in the candidate's printed election material?

Should the candidate be required to go further and publish

the fact of withdrawal of support? Sir, whether these and

other subsidiary matters should or should not be provided

for in the legislation is a question which has troubled me

in the short time we have had to study the Bill. In the