ARTICLE 19 and The Hong Kong Journalists Association
4.9
CORRUPTION AND THE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
Under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance," the offence of disclosing the identity of a person under investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has been a source of disquiet. Although the relevant section of the Ordinance was amended in May 1992, various legislators and media groups expressed dissatisfaction that the changes did not go far enough, and that the provision was still inconsistent with the public's right to know under Article 16 of the Bill of Rights.
The amended Section 30(1) authorizes the disclosure of the identity of a person under investigation by the ICAC after that person has been arrested. It improves marginally on the previous provision which prohibited disclosure of the details of an investigation at any stage, before or after arrest, until formal charges had been laid and made public by the ICAC.
A Legislative Council ad hoc group studying the law is to undertake a more comprehensive review of the Ordinance's compatibility with the Bill of Rights which will look at Section 30(1) in the light of the debate concerning rights to privacy and to freedom of expression and information.
4.10 OTHER RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Although this chapter cannot provide an exhaustive run-down of relevant legislation, it is perhaps worth noting three other laws pertaining to freedom of expression.
Firstly, the Judicial Proceedings Ordinance continues to retain a provision which renders unlawful the publication, in relation to any judicial proceedings, of any indecent matter, or any medical, surgical or physiological details which are of an offensive or revolting nature. The provision has rarely been invoked, despite revelations in the media of court proceedings which clearly may fall into this category, and the question has to be asked whether it serves any useful purpose and is a reasonable restraint on the press as measured against Article 16. More importantly, it draws into relief the related but murky area of contempt of court, which has the potential to be a serious restraint on freedom of the press. At present there is no single ordinance on contempt of court; the law is largely found in legal precedents, a feature which led to the Sub-committee of the Law Reform Commission on Contempt of Court to remark in its report of 1986 that "the press and the public must know where they stand and so the circumstances in which judicial intervention to prevent or punish contempt of court must be clearly defined. It is not enough to say that the law can be found in cases." A contempt of court ordinance, narrowly drawn to protect freedom of expression and information and providing clear guidelines for the media, is therefore long overdue.
43 Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap 201), enacted in 1970, last revised in 1992.
48
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.