Press statement
2000-3-2
In response to media enquiries concerning a judicial review sought by a former ICAC officer over the termination of his service, an Independent Commission Against Corruption spokesman today made the following statement:
" The Commission does not consider it appropriate to comment on the case and on any specific allegation as an application has been filed with the High Court. Once legal proceedings have been initiated, the court is the proper place for both parties to state their grounds.
We can confirm that the ICAC Commissioner terminated the service of three investigators under S.8(2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance (ICACO) on 9.10.1999. The decision was taken following a thorough internal investigation. Two o f them had appealed to the Chief Executive and their appeals were unsuccessful.
S.8(2) of the ICACO states that the Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that it is in the interests of the Commission to do so, after consulting the Advisory Committee on Corruption, terminate the appointment of an officer.
An independent 1994 ICAC Review Committee reaffirmed the need for the ICAC Commissioner to be vested with the authority to remove without delay any officer whose loyalty or integrity is in doubt.
As a result of the recommendations of the Review Committee, statutory procedures relating to S. 8 have since been amended to ensure an officer is made available all channels of recourse.
Before terminating an appointment of an officer, S.8(2) requires the ICAC Commissioner to undertake the following procedures:
- by notice in writing inform the officer concerned that the termination of his appointment is under consideration and the reasons;
- the officer can submit written representations to the Commissioner on why his appointment should not be terminated;
- the Commissioner is required by law to consult the independent Advisory Committee on Corruption before making his final decision;
- the officer shall be notified in writing of the termination if so decided;
- the officer can lodge an appeal with the Chief Executive against the termination.
The ICAC at all times has acted in full accordance with the law. ”
" The Commission does not consider it appropriate to comment on the case and on any specific allegation as an application has been filed with the High Court. Once legal proceedings have been initiated, the court is the proper place for both parties to state their grounds.
We can confirm that the ICAC Commissioner terminated the service of three investigators under S.8(2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance (ICACO) on 9.10.1999. The decision was taken following a thorough internal investigation. Two o f them had appealed to the Chief Executive and their appeals were unsuccessful.
S.8(2) of the ICACO states that the Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that it is in the interests of the Commission to do so, after consulting the Advisory Committee on Corruption, terminate the appointment of an officer.
An independent 1994 ICAC Review Committee reaffirmed the need for the ICAC Commissioner to be vested with the authority to remove without delay any officer whose loyalty or integrity is in doubt.
As a result of the recommendations of the Review Committee, statutory procedures relating to S. 8 have since been amended to ensure an officer is made available all channels of recourse.
Before terminating an appointment of an officer, S.8(2) requires the ICAC Commissioner to undertake the following procedures:
- by notice in writing inform the officer concerned that the termination of his appointment is under consideration and the reasons;
- the officer can submit written representations to the Commissioner on why his appointment should not be terminated;
- the Commissioner is required by law to consult the independent Advisory Committee on Corruption before making his final decision;
- the officer shall be notified in writing of the termination if so decided;
- the officer can lodge an appeal with the Chief Executive against the termination.
The ICAC at all times has acted in full accordance with the law. ”