12 July 1989
一九八九年七月十二日
42
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
香港立法局
MR. PETER WONG: Sir, my colleague the Honourable Maria TAM has already explained in great detail the approach adopted by Members in studying the Bill. I will not therefore attempt to say anything further on general aspects but will instead concentrate on several technical points which arose during our examination of the Bill.
I would like to begin by referring to clause 8(1) of the Bill which allows an imprisonment term fixed in accordance with the amount charged against a person under the confiscation order, as if it were a term fixed under section 114(c) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. The ad hoc group finds this unsatisfactory because by so doing the court will appear to have a discretion to order an imprisonment term associated with the confiscation order to run either consecutive to or concurrent with an imprisonment term arising from the drug trafficking offence. This ambiguity is deepened by the stated intention in the Legislative Council brief on the Bill that the former imprisonment term should be served in addition to the latter imprisonment term. The Administration agreed with the group's observation and an amendment will be moved at Committee stage.
The second point relates to clause 20(4) of the Bill which spells out a number of conditions required to be satisfied before a person can be ordered to produce or allow access to certain material to an authorized officer. One of these conditions, under sub-clause 4(a), involves "reasonable grounds for suspecting" that a person has carried on or has benefited from drug trafficking. In line with the ad hoc group's thinking that the liability of and inconvenience to innocent third parties should be minimized as far as possible, an amendment will be made to alter this condition to "reasonable grounds for believing" that a person has carried on or has benefited from drug trafficking. Since the standard of proof required to establish there being a "belief" is higher than that of there being a "suspicion", the invocation of this power will therefore be confined to more limited circumstances.
Nowadays when office automation is the synonym for business efficiency, the capability of information technology is also fully exploited by drug traffickers. Thus it becomes inevitable that the Bill must allow authorized officers to gain access to data contained in computers or other electronic storage devices. The present provision under clause 20(7) only covers "information contained in a computer". This is clearly inadequate and out of step with the rapid technological advances prevailing today. The ad hoc group feels that a more comprehensive definition should be drawn up with reference to relevant provisions in the Securities and Futures Commission Ordinance. Accordingly, a
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.