TNAG-1859-FCO40-2634-Legislative-Council-of-Hong-Kong-memoranda-and-minutes-of-me-1989 — Page 31

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

18 October 1989

香港立法局

一九八九年十月十八日

27

ATTORNEY GENERAL: I called, Sir, for a review of the original advice in the light of suggestions made by members of the legal profession that called into question the legal position. Having received that further advice, and with the benefit of the views of senior colleagues within chambers, I then proceeded to exercise my discretion as to whether or not prosecution should, after all, be brought. In reaching that decision, I took into account all the many factors that are necessary for the formulation of the decision to prosecute or not to prosecute, factors that Members of this Council will recall having been laid before them on previous occasions. I shall add that the decision to prosecute is never brought simply to satisfy public opinion.

MRS. CHOW: Sir, according to press reports there seems to be a gap of some two or three months between the point when Mr. HARRIS was advised to leave the Government and the point at which the Bar was notified of the case. Can the Attorney General please explain why there is such a long gap from the point when the first incident happened, since he has already decided that he should refer the matter to the Bar Committee?

ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, I wrote to the chairman of the Bar on 15 May, advising him of certain matters and informing him of the circumstances under which Mr. HARRIS had left my chambers. On 22 May the chairman of the Bar replied to me asking whether I would be prepared to supply certain evidence to him to enable the Bar Committee to form a view as to whether or not disciplinary proceedings should be brought against Mr. HARRIS. Evidence was supplied on 4 August, some two and a half months later, and I have described in my main answer what that evidence consisted of. It consisted of transcripts and statements. The gap of two and a half months was caused firstly by the necessity to obtain legal advice as to whether there were documents that would be privileged by law from production. It was also necessary to obtain consents both from the police and from a witness to the release of the material to the Bar. That said, I would accept that a delay of two and a half months was an overlong time with which to comply with the Bar's request.

MR. CHEONG: Sir, in paragraph 9 of his reply the Attorney General said that it was right to re-submit the same papers to leading counsel inviting him to consider certain aspects of the law. Could I ask whether that aspect of the law was the result of the Attorney General Chambers' own research or that of an outside legal adviser's or comments that he has heard?

{