The background of the Interception of Communications and Surveillance Ordinance cannot be more stormy and controversial. It dated back to 2005 when the District Court threw out two bribery cases. In the first case, the judge ruled the way in which private communication was tapped was illegal. In the second, investigators were ruled knowingly to have hacked privileged legal information between the accused and his lawyer.

Losing the two court cases prompted the Chief Executive to promulgate an executive order on covert surveillance in July 2005.

But in February 2006, the court handed down a ruling on a judicial review of the executive order, ruling that it was not a legitimate authorization for law enforcement agencies to conduct covert surveillance.

To avoid a judicial vacuum, the court resolved to put the ruling on hold for six months, giving the government time to enact corrective legislation. In a rare move, the Legislative Council was called upon to vet the bill on Aug 2-5, 2006, when the legislature was supposed to be in summer recess, in order to beat the deadline.

(HK Edition 07/29/2011 page4)