HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL —————— 18 October 1989
香港立法局 —————————一九八九年十月十八日
23
comprised statements of witnesses, transcripts of tape recordings of telephone conversations and of a conversation with an undercover police agent, and a detailed police covering report. This material was delivered to leading counsel with instructions to advise whether or not there was any criminal offence with which Mr. HARRIS could be charged.
The Queen's Counsel delivered his written opinion on Monday, 1 May 1989. He was unequivocal in his advice. That advice was that there was no crime with which Mr. HARRIS could be charged. In the light of that advice, I decided that there was no basis for a prosecution. Mrs. TU asks whether in arriving at my decision I took into account the interests of the public and of possible victims. Since I was advised that there was no crime with which Mr. HARRIS could be charged, these questions did not, in the event, arise.
Certain suggestions have been made that the police investigations into this case were improperly terminated by me or by Mr. DUCKETT. These suggestions are untrue. The papers presented to Mr. DUCKETT revealed that, prior to that date, the police had intended to take certain steps on 27 April. But by the time the papers were delivered to him, the police had already decided to discontinue the operation planned for 27 April. I did not cause the police action to be stopped and, in any event, I should emphasize that in the final analysis operational decisions are for the police, and not for me.
Following my decision not to prosecute, I nevertheless formed the view that, in the light of the matters before me, it would not be appropriate for Mr. HARRIS to continue to perform his duties as a Senior Crown Counsel. I conveyed my views to the Secretary for the Civil Service as the Secretary responsible for civil service contracts of employment. He decided that Mr. HARRIS should leave the Government's service, and advised that this would best be achieved by terminating his contract of employment by mutual agreement. On 3 May 1989, I informed Mr. HARRIS of the decision made and he left my chambers that evening. He has not performed any duties since then.
There remained then the question of his position as a member of the Hong Kong Bar. As a matter of law it is open to me as well as to the Bar to apply to the Chief Justice to appoint a committee of inquiry to inquire into a complaint against a barrister. It has been suggested that I should have taken this course. That was indeed one available avenue. Another was for me to refer the matter to the Bar Committee. I had decided upon that latter course. As it happened, the chairman of the Bar spoke to me shortly after the events I have described. At his request I made available all papers necessary for his purpose; that is the transcripts and the statements but not communications privileged in law. These
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.