V. Chan of West Kowloon mentioned me by name several times in his letter headlined 'Why justice was done' (December 26) in relation to the decision of the Department of Justice not to prosecute former financial secretary Antony Leung Kam-chung.
I am afraid V. Chan has not quoted me correctly. I never made an analogy of someone caught stealing in the supermarket, nor did I say that a decision to prosecute should be made as long as there was a prima facie case. I queried the decision because it was based on the requirement that the prosecution has to prove that tax evasion was the one and only purpose of buying the car, and that Mr Leung would not have bought the car if he had not known that tax would be increased.
There is no such requirement for the offence of 'misconduct in public office' as defined in the authoritative Court of Final Appeal ruling quoted by the secretary for justice. I also queried whether this was a requirement in other recent prosecutions of the same offence, and whether this additional high threshold would make it difficult to prosecute for the offence in future. It is not every case with a prima facie case which should be prosecuted, but a case which is fit to go before a jury should not be withdrawn unless public interest so requires.
In the case of Mr Leung, it is a matter for the jury to decide whether he knew that car registration tax was going to be increased substantially at the time he bought the car, and if he did know, whether he nevertheless bought the car for his family out of necessity and whether that would make it not 'misconduct in public office'. I maintain that the decision should be a matter for the court, not for the Department of Justice.
I have every respect for the two silks who gave their independent legal advice on the evidence put before them. But the final decision rests with the Department of Justice. Everyone is entitled to have and to voice his or her view as to the correctness of the decision.
I happen to consider the decision incorrect. V. Chan's insinuation that my 'accusations' were 'politically motivated' is unfounded.
