Clause 74

by deleting the word “or” at the end of paragraph (d) of Explanation 2 after subsection (3);

by deleting the full‑stop at the end of paragraph (e) of Explanation 2 after subsection (3) and substituting the word “; or”, and by inserting immediately thereafter the following paragraph:“(f)where an accused’s statement under section 22 or 23 is in writing, when section 22(5) or 23(3B) (as the case may be) requires the statement to be recorded in the form of an audiovisual recording.”;

by inserting, immediately after subsection (4), the following subsection:“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (3), the making of a statement by an accused is not to be regarded as caused by any inducement, threat or promise merely because a person in authority had earlier informed the accused that the accused was required or legally bound to give information under section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap. 241), if that person believed in good faith, when so informing the accused, that —

the accused was concerned in an offence under that Act; or

a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, that the accused was concerned in an offence under that Act.”;

by deleting subsection (5) and the Explanation after that subsection and substituting the following subsections:“(5) When 2 or more persons are tried jointly in any of the following circumstances, and a confession made by one such person affecting that person and any other such person is proved, the court may take into consideration the confession as against the other person as well as against the person who made the confession:

all of those persons are tried jointly for the same offence;

the proof of the facts alleged in the charge for the offence for which one of those persons (A) is tried (excluding any fact relating to any intent or state of mind on the part of A necessary to constitute the offence for which A is tried) would, for each of the rest of those persons, result in the proof of the facts alleged in the charge for the offence for which that person is tried (excluding any fact relating to any intent or state of mind on the part of that person necessary to constitute the offence for which that person is tried);

at least one of those persons is tried for an offence under section 411, 412, 413 or 414 of the Penal Code (Cap. 224) in respect of any property, and the rest of those persons are tried for one or more of the offences of theft, extortion, robbery, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust or cheating under Chapter XVII of the Penal Code in respect of the same property.(5A) Despite subsection (5), the court may refuse to take into consideration a confession as against a person (other than the maker of the confession), if the prejudicial effect of the confession on that person outweighs the probative value of the confession.(5B) In subsection (5), “offence” includes an abetment of, a conspiracy to commit, or an attempt to commit, the offence.”; and

by inserting, immediately after paragraph (b) of the Illustrations, the following paragraph:“(c)A is charged with an offence of corruptly giving a gratification to B under section 5(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap. 241). B is charged with an offence of corruptly receiving the same gratification from A under section 5(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A and B are jointly tried for those offences. If a confession made by A affecting both A and B is proved, and the same facts are alleged in the charges against A and B, the court may take into consideration the confession as against B, even though A and B are charged with offences that have different elements.”.