************************************************************
Following are the opening remarks of the Secretary for Transport and Housing, Professor Anthony Cheung Bing-leung, at the press conference today (April 24) on results of the internal investigation into the Marine Department in relation to the vessel collision incident near Lamma Island in 2012:
Now I would like to say a few words in English. Before I came here I met with the bereaved families and briefed them on the overall findings of the internal investigation of Marine Department officers who were involved in the vessel Lamma IV which sank in October 2012.
This matter would be discussed at the meeting of Legislative Council's (LegCo) Economic Development Panel next Monday, April 28. The paper has already been uploaded onto LegCo's website at 7pm this evening.
The investigation was led by the Permanent Secretary for Transport and Housing (Transport) who is Mr Lai (Joseph Lai) sitting next to me. The investigation was on the possible maladministration and negligence of duty on the part of Marine Department officers in carrying out their duties in the past relating to Lamma IV.
The investigation report was submitted to me on March 31 this year. It contains seven chapters, altogether 430 pages. In addition there are also a total of 399 appendices. I have studied the report and have consulted the Department of Justice (DoJ) on the matter.
The investigation was complex, covering a very large number of officers and a long span of time. Hence the investigation team had researched huge numbers of Marine Department and related documents dating back to the early 1990s.
A total of 55 Marine Department officers have been identified, covering most of the officers who have handled Lamma IV since November 1994 and the supervisors of these officers up to the top management.
Among the 55 Marine Department officers, two had passed away and one was not able to assist the investigation due to serious health problem. Hence, a total of 52 officers have come under investigation, comprising 11 directorate officers and 41 non-directorate officers; 38 are serving officers while 14 have retired from the service as at the point of the incident in 2012.
Of the 52 officers investigated, 37 of them were directly involved in the handling of Lamma IV while the remaining 15 officers were their supervisors at different levels in the management, or involved in the work of local vessels in general. Among them, there are officers of the Ship Inspector Grade, Surveyor of Ships Grade, Marine Officer Grade and Shipping Safety Officer Grade.
On the basis of prima facie evidence available, the investigation team has concluded that a total of 17 officers - 13 serving and four retired officers - are alleged to have misconducted themselves while discharging their duties in respect of Lamma IV in the past.
Among these 13 officers, the team has recommended that consideration be given to instituting formal disciplinary proceedings against seven of them, and summary disciplinary action - mainly in the form of warnings - against the remaining six. Within the civil service, formal disciplinary action will be taken for relatively serious misconduct, with the punishment ranging from reprimand to dismissal.
Of the four officers who have already retired from the civil service at the time of the collision incident (including one directorate and three non-directorate officers), the team has recommended that, were they still in office, then consideration should be given to instituting formal disciplinary actions against two of them, and summary (disciplinary) action against the other two.
On the criminal investigation front, the team has made referrals to the Police, actually there were two referrals, but the timing and content of such referrals and any other related details of the matters cannot be disclosed here to avoid prejudicing the Police's ongoing criminal investigation.
The Police has earlier requested the Transport and Housing Bureau to provide them with the full report for the purpose of their criminal investigation into the incident. In consultation with the Department of Justice, the bureau has already provided the full report to the Police for their criminal investigation. We understand that the Police's criminal investigation is still ongoing.
The internal investigation, which is the subject of the report, was a disciplinary investigation into officers of the Marine Department. Therefore, the full report was already forwarded to the Civil Service Bureau in early April. As to whether or not the charges in an individual disciplinary case can be established, it would of course have to go through the established disciplinary procedures.
Apart from Lamma IV, in the course of investigation, the investigation team had also come across matters of non-compliance in respect of other Classes I and II vessels, including the non-compliance with life-saving appliances. With my agreement, the team is now conducting a separate investigation into the matter and I have instructed the team to submit the report of this investigation to me as soon as possible.
I would like to elaborate a bit on the considerations regarding the disclosure of this internal investigation report, as I said we have consulted the Department of Justice. In fact on the basis of clear view of the Department of Justice, including the view of the Director of Public Prosecutions, public disclosure of the full report at this stage has the serious risk of prejudicing criminal investigation and any potential criminal proceedings in respect of the incident.
DoJ's view is that public disclosure of the full report has the risk of allowing suspects to be forewarned about what witnesses may say against them, thereby giving them the chance to modify or even fabricate accordingly to the evidence they may subsequently give to the Police. The memories and evidence of potential witnesses may also be tainted. In addition, potential juries may be influenced by the findings and recommendations made by the team in this investigation report.
Both the bureau and DoJ have considered the possibility of redaction of the report, in other words to cover those parts which are considered to be sensitive in terms of the criminal investigation and potential criminal proceedings. However, redaction of the report for public disclosure purpose is not considered practicable at the end of the day because the bulk of the report will have to be redacted in order not to risk prejudicing the ongoing criminal investigation and any potential criminal proceedings. If we are going to go along the route of redaction, actually the report would be made rather thin and also would be made very incoherent.
So, at the end of the day, we have decided that the full report should not be disclosed. However, we have also decided to provide a summary of the report in order to, as far as possible, report on the overall findings of the investigation. In this summary of the report, which is attached to the LegCo paper, we have disclosed as many details as possible, subject to the consideration of not prejudicing criminal investigation and any potential criminal proceedings. So this is my explanation of the investigation and I have already shared this with the bereaved families just then. I am prepared to answer questions from the media.
Ends/Thursday, April 24, 2014
Issued at HKT 23:55
NNNN
Windows Media format
Flash format