刑事檢控科各律師/高級律政 - Department of Justice

25
keep them abreast of what he was doing on their behalf and to solicit
their views. On appeal, it was submitted, first, that the magistrate erred
in his definition of an ‘election meeting’. Second, it was argued that s
7(ii), which provided ‘The serving of meals of any kind incidental to
an election meeting shall of itself prima facie be deemed corrupt
within the meaning of this section’, threw upon the Appellant the
obligation of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the provision
of a meal incidental to the election meeting was not corrupt and that by
placing that onus upon him, he was deprived of his right to be
presumed innocent as enshrined in article 11 of the Bill of Rights
Ordinance. Third, it was contended that the magistrate erred in finding
that ‘election expenses’ were incurred on behalf of the candidates
because it mattered not that he did so without their prior knowledge or
agreement. It was argued that knowledge or agreement of the
candidate to the incurring of election expenses was necessary to the
definition. If not, the words ‘on the candidates behalf’ would be
otiose.
Held :
(1) ‘Election meeting’ meant a meeting organised by a person for
election campaigning purposes, or with a view to promoting the
candidature of a person either directly or indirectly. The intention of the
legislature in the wording of s 7 must have been to strike at the practice
of the serving of meals to a gathering promoting the candidature of a
particular person or persons so as to affect their votes. To narrow that
definition by restricting it to gatherings held by the candidate himself or
by any other person with consent on his behalf would narrow the scope
of the section unduly. The words ‘election meeting’ were to be given
their ordinary meaning;
(2) It was the policy of the legislature that elections be kept free of
corruption and, given that an honest legislature was essential to the
proper governance of Hong Kong, measures to ensure that honesty
were very important. S 7(ii) did not contravene article 11 of the Bill of
Rights Ordinance;
(3) ‘Election expenses’, as defined in s 2 of the Corrupt and Illegal
Practices Ordinance, meant ‘incurred by a candidate and by any
other person on the candidate’s behalf on account of or in respect
of the conduct or management of the election or for the purpose of
promoting or procuring the election of that candidate’. The words
‘on the candidates behalf’ re-enforced the intent of the definition that
the expenses incurred by another must be in the election of that
candidate and not the election at large or any other candidate. On the
ordinary construction of the definition, knowledge and/or agreement of