TNAG-1859-FCO40-2634-Legislative-Council-of-Hong-Kong-memoranda-and-minutes-of-me-1989 — Page 28

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

18 October 1989

香港立法局 ——一九八九年十月十八日

24

privileged documents were the Queen's Counsel's opinion and communications between the police and my chambers. Members of this Council will be aware that disciplinary proceedings have now been instituted.

There has been criticism of the way in which Mr. HARRIS obtained a practising certificate shortly after leaving government service. It is suggested that I should have made representations to prevent him from entering practice. The short answer is that I have no such power in law. He was admitted to the Hong Kong Bar in April 1986, long before these events took place. Any objection to an admission is to be taken at the stage of admission and not later upon the issue of the annual practising certificate.

Sir, there have, since the events which I have just related, been further developments. Members of the legal profession expressed views as to the law contrary to the advice I had received. In the light of those views, I thought it right to re-submit the same papers to the Queen's Counsel who had previously advised, inviting him to consider certain aspects of the law and seeking his further opinion. This I did on 14 September this year. That further opinion differed in its conclusion from the original. As a result, and with the benefit of the views of Mr. C. W. REID, when recently acting as Director of Public Prosecutions, I have decided that a prosecution should be brought against Mr. HARRIS for alleged offences of incitement to procure a girl under the age of 21 for unlawful sexual intercourse. It would, Sir, be quite improper for me to enter upon a debate now on the merits of the case or on the issues of law. As has often been stated in this Council, questions of guilt or innocence are questions to be determined in a court of law, where an accused has the right to put his side of the case in accordance with established procedure.

Sir, I have now explained at some length the steps taken by me and in particular, I have addressed those areas which have been the subject of specific concern. Outside counsel was consulted and all the papers were submitted to him. There was no interference in the police investigation. Any suggestion that Mr. HARRIS was not prosecuted because of the position he held within my chambers is entirely without foundation.

The original decision not to prosecute has not only given rise to much public concern. It also had a bearing on subsequent actions and decisions. It is therefore regrettable that the decision not to prosecute was based on legal advice which, in the event, has proved to be inconsistent with that more recently received. I wish to make it quite clear to this Council that I bear full responsibility for the views of the law taken and for all consequent decisions.