Use common sense to report crime under Article 23: SJ
The vetting process for national security legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law continued at a Legislative Council bills committee on Saturday, a day after the government presented the draft law to the full council. Officials including Secretary for Justice Paul Lam and Secretary for Security Chris Tang fielded questions on the matter, at one of the meetings that are expected to last a total of eight hours. Lawmaker Lo Wai-kwok asked officials to clarify a clause that requires people to disclose to a police officer "as soon as reasonably practicable" any knowledge they have of someone else committing treason. Lam explained that the phrase "as soon as reasonably practicable" only means that people should report the offence as soon as they can, taking into account practical considerations. "Would people be arrested if they don't do it right away? But in the real world, it's not always possible to notify someone immediately. So there needs to be some common sense here, which is why we have the phrase 'as soon as reasonably practicable.' This means that there is a certain degree of reasonableness to it,” he said. “For example, if I don't have a phone and I have to walk a kilometre to find a police officer, then that is a reasonable amount of time. So we need to make sure that when we draft this ordinance, it doesn't come across as an unrealistic or burdensome requirement." Lam was also asked if lawyers are entitled to legal professional privileges if they learn about a person’s intention to commit treason. He stressed that if a person discloses their intention under the formal context of seeking legal advice, then the lawyer is not allowed to disclose the information to anyone else and does not bear any responsibility of not reporting the crime. However, this is not the case if the disclosure is made during a casual conversation between friends, the minister added. “I'll give an extreme example: I ask a lawyer if it is illegal to organise an army to overthrow the SAR or China. The lawyer will of course tell me that it is illegal. The content of this consultation process must be kept confidential… This is because it is necessary to protect everyone's freedom to consult a lawyer. In this case, the lawyer will not have any responsibility to report the matter to the police," he said. “However, if the person does not seek formal legal advice and instead talks to a friend who’s a lawyer about their intention to commit a crime, then the legal privilege does not apply.” The bills committee later discussed clauses on insurrection, incitement to mutiny and disaffection.   On offences related to inciting public officers, DAB lawmaker Gary Chan raised concerns as to whether civil servants violate the law or not if they persuade their peers to go for early retirement together and emigrate to other places.  Lam stressed that if one no longer wants to work for the government that does not automatically mean they are not loyal to the SAR or abandon the Basic Law. Only if they behave in certain ways, for example, supporting Hong Kong independence or secession from China would be seen as not upholding the Basic Law, he added.