Police did not act impulsively or in bad faith when they arrested a barrister who refused to disclose his clients' 'suspicious' financial transaction as he deemed it confidential, a court heard yesterday. The comments came in a judicial review into the arrest of barrister Robert Pang Yiu-hung, as a representative of the police commissioner answered claims the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Osco) overrode legal professional privilege. Earlier this week at the Court of First Instance, Pang, the Bar Council and the Hong Kong Law Society asked the court to clarify whether the issue of confidentiality was made redundant by Section 25 (a) of Osco. The section says a lawyer must report to authorities any suspicions that his client is dealing with properties believed to be the proceeds of an indictable offence. Police arrested Pang and two solicitors on March 14, claiming they had breached the ordinance when they failed to give authorities details of a suspicious transaction made when their clients, a husband and wife, told them they would pay legal fees by liquidating securities from two personal accounts. The couple stand charged with dealing with property believed to be the proceeds of an indictable offence. But Pang has maintained that when he first met the pair in the magistrate's court cells on October 23 last year, his suspicions were not aroused. He also believed his clients' personal accounts were not connected to their charges as no restraining order had been enforced. Pang said he had no obligation to tell authorities the details of the conversation because it was covered by legal privilege. The barrister wants the court to declare his arrest unlawful and arbitrary. Police have informed Pang the probe has been completed and no action will be taken. But Michael Blanchflower, SC, representing the police commissioner, said the arrest had been reasonable. 'The background to the arrest and the procedures taken, the information provided and considered at large . . . go to dispel any suggestion that it was motivated by bad faith or capriciousness,' Mr Blanchflower said. He added Law Society guidelines enshrined the responsibility solicitors had in reporting suspicious financial transactions. The case continues before Mr Justice Michael Hartmann.