Court warrants were applied to search seven newspapers because they were involved in possible serious crimes, said Raymond Wong, commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

The graftbuster resorted to search warrants only after the newspapers had refused to co-operate by producing the required information, he added.

Addressing the Legislative Council's Panel on Security Tuesday, Wong said the ICAC operation involved the Witness Protection Ordinance and the offence of perverting the course of justice.

The ICAC had presented detailed justifications for application for the warrants before Justice William Stone of the Court of First Instance and the judge took four hours to examine the issue stringently.

Wong noted that "since the operation was launched to probe the media's involvement" in possible serious crimes, the issue should not be "mixed with the discussion on freedom of expression".

Kevin Zervos, senior assistant director of Public Prosecutions, added that the purpose for the warrant application was twofold.

First, information might be revealed following press reports that a person was seeking a habeas corpus from behind closed doors of the Court of First Instance.

Information revealed or the disclosure of somebody being investigated could prejudice the investigation of a corruption case, he said.

More seriously, the journalists were investigated as suspects involved in the naming of the person put under the witness protection programme.

However, most legislators were not satisfied with the ICAC's search of the newspapers.

Democratic Party lawmaker Cheung Man-kwong said the ICAC resorted to extreme measures without first attempting a milder course of action.

Leung Kwok-hung, from April Fifth Action, questioned if the ICAC had grounds to suspect that the seven newspapers would conspire to destroy the evidence.

Legal constituency representative Margaret Ng noted that although the Court of Appeal rejected Sing Tao newspaper's appeal to quash the search warrants, it also said Justice Michael Hartmann of the Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction to quash the warrants.

The ICAC should lodge an appeal with the Court of Final Appeal to clarify the issues, she said.

"It seems that the ICAC, after receiving a favourable judgment, is saying that it would uphold the rule of law in a selective manner."

Mak Yin-ting, honorary secretary of the Hong Kong Journalists' Association, pointed out that the relevant law was used three times since it was enacted.

On all three occasions, it was the ICAC who exercised this law to target the media, she told the panel.

She argued that search warrants should only be issued for "serious arrestable offences" and application for court warrants should be heard in the presence of both parties.

(China Daily HK Edition November 3, 2004)