Read the full judgment text of FACV 000002/1997 on BabelCite. This FACV judgment was delivered on 5 March 1998 before Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Ching PJ, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Power NPJ, Sir Daryl Dawson NPJ.
Constitutional and administrative law – disciplined service – police officer – disciplinary investigation – privilege against self-incrimination – right of silence – statutory interpretation – abrogation by necessary implication – Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232) s.30 – Police (Discipline) Regulations, 1982 reg. 3(2) – whether police officer obliged to answer questions in disciplinary investigation although answers might incriminate him in disciplinary offences – whether privilege against self-incrimination abrogated by necessary implication from statutory scheme – key facts: appellant was Senior Police Inspector suspected of involvement in karaoke lounge disturbance, using another person's payment of portable telephone fees, organising unauthorised chit fund and having triad associations; he refused to answer questions at interview on 4-5 February 1994 after being told it was a disciplinary investigation and that he was ordered to assist – issue: whether statutory scheme of Police Force Ordinance and Police (Discipline) Regulations abrogated common law privilege against self-incrimination in disciplinary investigation – holding: yes, privilege abrogated by necessary implication from statutory scheme; s.30 duty to obey lawful orders and reg. 3(2) disciplinary scheme would break down otherwise – follows Police Service Board v. Morris (1985) 156 CLR 397 and adopts approach of Lord Mustill in R v Director of Serious Fraud Office ex parte Smith [1993] AC 1 that abrogation by necessary implication from general language is a common legislative technique – protection where disciplinary conduct also constitutes criminal offence lies in inadmissibility of involuntarily elicited evidence rather than in privilege – appeal against conviction for conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline under reg. 3(2)(c) dismissed – appellant ordered to pay costs.
Legal issues: Abrogation of privilege against self-incrimination in police disciplinary investigation
Outcome: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Cited by 1 case