The Court of Final Appeal ruled on the construction of offence disclosing ICAC investigations in HKSAR v Lam Cheuk Ting
The Court of Final Appeal handed down its decision in HKSAR v Lam Cheuk Ting [2025] HKCFA 7 on 1 April 2025, allowing the Department of Justice’s appeal by a majority of 3 to 2. The Court set aside the CFI’s earlier decision and reinstated the original conviction and sentence of 4 months’ imprisonment imposed on Mr Lam under section 30(1)(b) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201).
Background:
The case involved criminal liability for public disclosure of the identity of a person under ICAC investigation. Mr Lam had publicly disclosed that a senior police officer was under investigation for misconduct in public office, without mentioning that a parallel investigation into a corruption offence under Part II of the Ordinance was also ongoing – a fact he knew at the time.
The Legal Question:
The key issue was whether section 30(1)(b) is breached when someone knowingly discloses that a person is under investigation for a non-Part II offence, despite knowing that a Part II investigation is also underway. Must the disclosure itself reveal that the investigation relates to a Part II offence?
The Split Decision:
The majority (Cheung CJ, Ribeiro PJ, Allsop NPJ) held that disclosing the existence of the investigation alone suffices, so long as the discloser knows that it involves a Part II offence; while the minority (Fok PJ, Lam PJ) held that disclosure must objectively indicate a Part II investigation to fall within the scope of the offence, mentioning only non-Part II matters would not suffice.
Significance:
This is a leading judgment on the interpretation of section 30 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. It confirms that the statutory offence focuses on protecting the integrity of corruption-related investigations by criminalising premature disclosures, even if the public message does not directly refer to a Part II offence. The close split within the Court underscores the complexity of the issue and will likely shape future enforcement and public conduct in relation to ICAC matters.
Our Partner Jonathan Man, Associate Bridget Clancey and Associate Heidi Yu handled the case.
The full judgment can be viewed here.
