Government response
(February 2009)

Government response
(December 2012)

Government response
(June 2021)

Latest position:
The Bureau has advised that: “The Bureau, upon detailed examination together with its law enforcement agencies (LEAs), has thoroughly considered the recommendations in the Report at different stages over the past years.  The majority of the endorsed recommendations have already been implemented to improve our law enforcement regime and provide sufficient procedural safeguards.  The Bureau has further looked into the remaining recommendations, having regard to the local enforcement experience in the past years and evolvement of the legislation since the Report was published.  The Bureau has concluded that all necessary actions have been completed and no further legislative amendments are required.”

Government response
(April 2009)

Government response
(December 2012)

Latest position:
Some technical aspects were implemented by the Companies (Amendment) Ordinance (28 of 2003) enacted in July 2003 amending Cap 32.

Having reviewed the key issues addressed in the Report and taking into account the sector’s latest developments, the Bureau has concluded: “not to pursue the recommendation to merge corporate insolvency legislation with personal bankruptcy legislation as there is no clear benefit or market demand for such a change; to continue to rely on established professional sectors to deliver private sector insolvency services, rather than establishing and upkeeping a statutory licensing system at this time, as the latter is considered to be not cost-effective; on remuneration (fees) of office-holders, the market has operated smoothly in determining the fee level of private sector insolvency services, with disputes settled by the Court’s Taxing Masters, and there is no need to establish an adjudication panel arrangement to determine fees; and the concern that Official Receiver’s Office (ORO) should be adequately funded is noted. ORO’s funding bids, including additional resources as and when necessary, will continue to be processed in accordance with the Administration’s well-established policies and procedures.” 

The Bureau has stated that: “The regulation of the sales of second-hand local residential properties is strengthened with the assistance of the Estate Agents Authority (EAA). The EAA has required, among other things, that estate agents must provide information on the saleable area, if available from Rating and Valuation Department (RVD) or the first agreement, of second-hand residential properties to prospective purchasers with effect from 1 January 2013.”

Government response
(May 2009)

Government response
(Apr 2013)

Latest position:
The Report looks at various approaches which may be adopted in resolving family disputes, and focuses particularly on the use of mediation.  The Report makes recommendations to strengthen family mediation services and to enhance the family litigation process.

The Bureau has stated that: “The Bureau has been assigned to co-ordinate inputs from relevant bureaux and departments in formulating a response to LRC’s recommendations.  With the implementation of the Civil Justice Reform, legal aid has been extended to cover mediation in civil proceedings since 2009.  Between 2 April 2009 and 31 January 2024, the Legal Aid Department has approved funding for appointment of mediators in 2,069 matrimonial cases.  In May 2012, the Judiciary issued a Practice Direction on Family Mediation which sets out the duty of the parties and their legal representatives to assist the Court in encouraging the parties to use mediation as an alternative dispute resolution procedure.  Furthermore, a Practice Direction on Children’s Dispute Resolution Pilot Scheme has come into effect since October 2012 and has been formalised as standard practice since April 2016.  Parents wishing to seek mediation may approach the Integrated Mediation Office set up by the Judiciary for assistance.  The Judiciary introduced the Family Court-annexed Mediation Scheme as a pilot scheme for a period of two years commencing from March 2024. The scheme intends to assist the divorcing parties to settle their disputes by adopting a collaborative approach among Family Judges and Masters, the Integrated Mediation Office and family mediators at the court premises. Accredited family mediators have been engaged for provision of mediation services at the court premises as and when required on the hearing date.  A Practice Direction on a pilot scheme for private adjudication of financial disputes in matrimonial and family proceedings came into effect on 19 January 2015 and has been further extended for another two years from 2024 to 2026.  The scheme provides an alternative means for dispute resolution, which aims at furthering the objective of settlement facilitation.  The research team commissioned by the Family Council completed a study on the provision of family mediation services in Hong Kong in late 2016.  The Family Council has shared the study findings and recommendations with relevant bureaux/departments and organisations for their reference and follow up actions as appropriate.”

Government response
(April 2009)

Government response
(December 2012)

Latest position:
The Interception of Communications and Surveillance Bill was introduced prior to publication of the LRC Report in March 2006 to regulate the conduct of interception of communications and the use of surveillance devices by public officers; and to establish the Office of the Commissioner on Interception of Communications and Surveillance to oversee the compliance by four law enforcement agencies with the relevant requirements. The Bill was passed on 6 August 2006 as Ordinance 20 of 2006 (Cap 589). See also items 44 and 46 below.

The Bureau stated in the 2015 report to the AJLS Panel on LRC Reports’ implementation that: “The Bureau considered the LRC Report on this topic, together with 4 others on Stalking; Privacy and media intrusion; Civil liability for invasion of privacy; and Regulation of covert surveillance.

These 5 Reports touch on the sensitive and controversial policy and political issue of how to strike a balance between protection of individual privacy rights and freedom of the media. There were mixed responses and very divergent views from different sectors of the community. Given the complexity and sensitivity of the policy and political issues involved, the Bureau would consider the 5 Reports as and where appropriate and map out the way forward in consultation with relevant parties.”

Government response
(October 2010)

Latest position:
The Report recommended, inter alia, the expansion of the Supplementary Legal Aid Scheme by raising the financial eligibility limits, and increasing the types of cases covered by the Scheme.  The financial eligibility limits were raised in May, 2011, and the types of cases were expanded in November 2012.

Privacy – Part 3: Stalking
(October 2000)

Government response
(April 2009)

Government response
(December 2012)

Latest position:
The Bureau has stated that: “The Bureau decided to deal with the LRC Report on Stalking first and launched a public consultation on the recommendations from December 2011 to March 2012.  In the light of the concerns and divergent views expressed over the implications that the LRC’s recommendations would have on constitutional rights including freedom of the media and freedom of expression, the Bureau commissioned the Centre for Comparative and Public Law of the University of Hong Kong (‘the Consultant’) to study the experience of overseas jurisdictions in implementing their anti-stalking legislation and reported the findings and the Consultant’s recommended formulation to the LegCo Panel on Constitutional Affairs (‘the CA Panel’) in December 2013.  Some Members of the CA Panel continued to express strong reservations on the enactment of a piece of stalking legislation and counter-proposed that a ‘specified relations’ approach be further explored.
The Bureau has since sought the views of stakeholders who had submitted written views in the 2011/12 consultation, including the Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong.  After considering the feedback obtained and input from the Department of Justice, it is clear that none of the various formulations (i.e., LRC’s, the Consultant’s and the ‘specified relations’ approach) is supported by CA Panel Members, the major stakeholders or the public, as being able to achieve the objective of providing protection to all people alike against stalking while at the same time avoid inflicting interference to the freedoms of the press and expression.

The above being the case, the Bureau is of the view that there are no favourable conditions to pursue the matter further and sought the views of the CA Panel accordingly on 16 June 2014.  At that Panel meeting, some Members expressed support for not pursuing the LRC’s recommendations.  Regarding the ‘specified relations’ approach, Members noted the in-principle difficulties with this approach and that since the LRC Report was published in 2000, individual pieces of legislation have indeed been amended or administrative measures taken to better control harassment in domestic, landlord-and-tenant, and money lender-borrower relationships, and no Member requested further pursuing such an approach.

Causing or Allowing the Death or Serious Harm of a Child or Vulnerable Adult
(September 2021)

Government response
(September 2022)

Latest position:
The Government welcomes the recommendations in the Law Reform Commission’s (LRC) Report, in which the objective of the proposed new offence of “failure to protect”⁵ is in line with the Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse Bill (the Bill) recommended by the Government as they both mandate certain categories of persons to take reasonable steps to protect children from suffering serious harm. The Government notes that the LRC’s proposed new offence is relatively complex in the execution, in particular to define if a person owes a “duty of care” to the child in institutional settings. The enactment of the Bill in July 2024, which mandate 25 categories of professional practitioners in the Schedule 1 to the legislation to report serious child abuse cases, signifies a milestone in child protection. The Government will ensure the support measures on various fronts are in place properly during the 18-month transitional period and will monitor its effectiveness upon its implementation.

Government response
(March 2013)

Latest position:
The Bureau has advised that: “The Bureau conducted many rounds of consultations on whether and how Hong Kong should establish statutory corporate rescue procedures (CRP), and in 2020 introduced specific legislative proposal to key stakeholders, including Legislative Council members, business sector, professional sectors (including legal and accountancy sectors), labour sector etc.  While the proposal received support from some stakeholders, especially the accountancy and legal sectors as well as some from the business sector, some other key stakeholders had reservations.  The labour sector worried that the CRP might be abused resulting in shifting away assets or delaying other employee entitlements.  Some were concerned that the provisional supervisors leading the CRP may not pay heed to labour’s priorities when deriving the rescue plans.  In addition, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) considered that since CRP was complex and costly, only large companies would be able to make use of it while their right as non-guaranteed creditors would be adversely affected as they, with lower bargaining power, might have to accept significant hair-cut to the debts originally owed to them as part of the rescue package. When formulating the legislative proposal, the Bureau had many rounds of in-depth discussion with stakeholders and made serious attempts to strike a balance between diverse interests.  Nevertheless, quite a number of stakeholders and legislators asked for more time to study the proposal and assess its implications for their industries as they considered the proposal too complicated and brand new for the existing company insolvency system of Hong Kong.  Some of them went so far as to express objection or strong reservation.  In deciding the way forward, the Bureau will continue to listen to and consider the views of stakeholders, and welcome other suggestions from the professional sectors on the CRP or enhancing the existing corporate insolvency system.”

Government response
(November 2010)

Government response
(March 2013)

Latest position:
The Bureau has advised that: “The LRC recommended that, among others, suppliers’ implied undertakings which is currently applicable to contracts for the sale of goods only, should be extended to all types of contracts for the supply of goods.”

The Bureau has stated that: “The implied undertakings for all types of contracts for the supply of goods should be standardised and that legislative amendments should be introduced in due course.”

In the course of considering the LRC’s recommendations, the Bureau notes that: “The laws regarding contracts in the three jurisdictions (Australia, New Zealand and the UK) to which the LRC had made reference when formulating its recommendations have evolved over the past two decades with some having undergone substantial changes.

Government response
(April 2009)

Government response
(December 2012)

Latest position:
The Bureau has stated that: “The Report touches on the sensitive and controversial policy and political issue.  There were mixed responses and very divergent views from different sectors of the community.  In monitoring related developments in considering the way forward, the Privacy Commissioner and her Office noted that in the past few years, the number of complaints against media organisations remained low.  They will continue with the promotion and education efforts on the relevant requirements and exemptions of the the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (PDPO) on news activities.”  See items 44 and 46 above.

Government response
(June 2011)

Government response
(December 2012)

Government response to Legco AJLS Panel Motion on implementation
(May 2014)

Latest position:
The Bureau has stated that: “The Report touches on the sensitive and controversial policy and political issue.  There were mixed responses and very divergent views from different sectors of the community.  To provide an avenue for civil compensation claims related to personal data privacy breaches, the PDPO was amended in 2012 to, inter alia, empower the Privacy Commissioner to grant legal assistance under section 66B of the PDPO.  The Privacy Commissioner and her Office will continue to monitor related developments, noting the complexity and sensitivity of the policy and political issues involved.”  See items 44 and 46 above.

Government response
(November 2010)

Government response
(December 2012)

Government response
(April 2013)

Government response
(March 2015)

Latest position:
A total of 72 recommendations were made on the arrangements in relation to child custody and access, including that Hong Kong should follow jurisdictions such as England and Wales and Australia in applying the parental responsibility model to family law.  Some of the recommendations of the Report will fundamentally change the concept of “custody” underpinning the existing family law and have far-reaching implications.
In consultation with the Department of Justice, the then Home Affairs Bureau (re-organised as the Home and Youth Affairs Bureau from 1 July 2022), the Social Welfare Department, the Judiciary and other relevant Government Bureaux/Departments, the Labour and Welfare Bureau has prepared the draft Children Proceedings (Parental Responsibility) Bill (the proposed legislation) to follow up the majority of the LRC recommendations.  On 25 November 2015, the Bureau launched a four-month public consultation on the proposed legislation.  The Bureau advised that “the recommendation to reduce the minimum age of marriage without parental consent from 21 to 18 (Recommendation 69) and the recommendation that a list of circumstances should be set out in the legislation to determine when it is appropriate to appoint a separate representative for a child in children proceedings (Recommendation 50) will be dealt with separately.”  The public consultation ended on 25 March 2016.

The Bureau reported the results of the consultation to LegCo Panel on Welfare Services (LegCo Panel) in May 2017.  The results showed that the percentage of views in support of the implementation of the proposed legislation at this stage was about the same as that opposing it (i.e. 34.5% on each side), while another 20% of the views considered the proposed legislation worthy of support in principle, but requested additional resources and support measures as a prerequisite.  Those in support of the proposed legislation considered that it was in line with some countries' practices and could protect the child's best interests.  Those who opposed the proposed legislation considered that it could not help divorced parents in resolving conflicts, especially high-risk families with domestic violence background, but may cause more family problems and adversely affect the child’s development.  In particular, single-parent groups were concerned that the new requirement for obtaining the other party’s consent or giving notification on major decisions would be used by the troublemaking party with malicious intent to obstruct and harass the other spouse, causing distress to the child.  It may also result in long term hostility between divorced parents and more litigation.  Besides, the Bureau also noted that two motions were unanimously passed by the LegCo Panel on 22 February 2016 and 8 May 2017 respectively, requesting the Government not to introduce the proposed legislation into the LegCo at this stage, pending the provision of more support measures for divorcing/divorced/separated families.  Similar requests were also raised by deputations at the special meeting of the LegCo Panel held on 4 October 2017.

Having regard to the views collected during the public consultation and the LegCo Panel’s position, the Bureau proposed at the LegCo Panel meeting on 12 March 2018 not to introduce the proposed legislation into the LegCo at this stage.  However, the Bureau proposed to, as a matter of priority, increase resources in 2018/2019 to strengthen measures to support divorcing/divorced/separated families, so as to promote the concept of continuing parental responsibility towards children even after divorce, and strengthen co-parenting counselling and parenting coordination service, as well as making the Pilot Project on Children Contact Service a regular service of the Social Welfare Department (SWD) with service expansion.  The Bureau will keep in view stakeholders' receptiveness to the legislative proposal, in particular whether the doubts of those who oppose the legislation could be relieved, and consider whether and if so, the appropriate timing to pursue the legislation.

Government response
(December 2010)

Government response
(December 2012)

Latest position:
The Bureau has stated that: “The outcome of the public consultation launched in 2009 indicated that while the respondents generally were not opposed to introducing the concept of advance directives as a personal decision, there was no clear consensus or public support for promoting the concept by way of legislation.  In July 2010, the Hospital Authority (HA) issued the Guidance for HA Clinicians on Advance Directives in Adults which provides guidelines to HA frontline staff to deal with end-of-life care in an amicable manner under relevant circumstances.  The Guidance was updated in July 2016.  In January 2016, HA updated the HA Guidelines on Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), extending the Guidelines to non-hospitalised patients with advanced irreversible illnesses.  This facilitates the clinical staff to honour an advance directive refusing CPR of a non-hospitalised patient. 

Government response
(December 2010)

Government response
(December 2012)

Latest position:
The Department of Justice has advised that: “Following the legislative exercise of the Evidence (Amendment) Bill 2018 which lapsed in the Sixth Term of the LegCo, the Department is reviewing the matter as a whole with a view to revising and further improving the various legislative proposals to ensure that the new mechanism for admission of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings will best ensure the administration of justice.  The Government is committed to taking forward the legislative exercise with the aim of re-introducing an amendment bill afresh in the Seventh Term of the LegCo.”

Latest position:
The Government is examining the recommendations in the Report as a whole with a view to considering whether the legislative proposals should be implemented.  This is to ensure that any changes to the criteria for service as jurors will best suit the administration of justice.

Government response
(August 2012)

Government response
(February 2013)

Latest position:
The Department of Justice has stated that: “The Department is prepared to take forward all the recommendations and will work out details of the legislative amendments in consultation with the stakeholders.  We are now preparing a draft Bill for the purpose of consultation with the legal professional bodies, the Judiciary and stakeholders.”

Government response
(November 2012)

Latest position:
The Department of Justice has stated that: “The Government has established a cross-sector Working Group to study and consider the recommendations of the Report, comprising members representing stakeholders in the private sector, the relevant Government bureaux and departments, the two legal professional bodies and the Consumer Council, and a representative from the Judiciary whose role is confined to providing input to the deliberations from the perspective of interface with court operations.

Thirty two meetings of the Working Group were held between 2013 and 2024.  In addition, a sub-committee of the Working Group (‘Sub-Committee’) was formed to assist the Working Group on technical issues that might arise during its deliberations of the subject matter.  The Sub-Committee has held thirty-three meetings between 2014 and 2019.

The Bureau has stated that: “The recommendations of the LRC Report on charities are relevant to the purviews of various Government bureaux and departments.  Since many recommendations in the LRC Report carry significant implications on charities in Hong Kong in terms of their definition and operation, the Government needs to consider the recommendations thoroughly and carefully.  The Bureau has been tasked to co-ordinate inputs from relevant bureaux and departments in formulating a response to LRC’s recommendations.  In following up the co-ordination, the Bureau has taken into account the improvement measures recommended in the Director of Audit’s Report No 68 (Audit Report) as well as in the Public Accounts Committee Reports No 68 and 68A (PAC Reports), with a view to formulating a response.

With reference to the recommendations in the LRC Report, the Audit Report as well as the PAC Reports, the Government introduced and implemented a series of administrative measures relating to charitable fund-raising activities in 2018 and 2019 with a view to optimising the monitoring and supportive work relating to charitable fund-raising activities.  The Government will continue to keep in view the need for legislative amendments as appropriate.

Government response
(June 2021)

Latest position:
In consultation with the Lands Department (“LandsD”) and the Land Registry (“LR”), the Bureau has stated that: “The Bureau agrees with LRC’s recommendation that the existing provisions on adverse possession should be retained under the current deeds registration system.

The LRC recommended that the law of adverse possession under the registered land system should be recast upon implementation of the Land Titles Ordinance (“LTO”) (Cap 585) in future.  As a matter of principle, the Bureau welcomes the suggestion to give certainty to private land ownership through appropriate means to complement the title registration regime.  In this regard, the Government has been actively liaising with stakeholders on the proposal of implementing the title registration system of the LTO on newly granted land first.  The Development Bureau briefed the Development Panel of the LegCo in December 2022 that as part of this proposal of implementing the title registration system, the Government will examine the feasibility of dis-applying adverse possession laws on newly granted land to be covered by the title registration system in future, to dovetail with the principle of giving certainty to land title under the LTO.  The relevant proposal, together with the amendment bill for the LTO, is expected to be submitted for LegCo’s scrutiny in the first half of 2025.

The LRC Report suggests that the land boundary problem in the New Territories should be best dealt with together and in the context with the implementation of the LTO.  Currently, LandsD administers a voluntary submission arrangement for authorised land surveyors to submit land boundary information under the Code of Practice of the Land Survey Ordinance (Cap 473).  The Bureau takes note of LRC’s recommendation, and will keep in view the situation and the need for review.

There are also recommendations in the LRC Report for legislative amendments to the Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347) to clarify legal principles on adverse possession and overrule past judicial decisions.  In general, the Government adopts a cautious approach on interfering with established legal principles and judicial decisions.  At this stage, the Bureau does not see a pressing need to take forward the suggested legislative amendments.  The Bureau will however continue to keep in view the legal developments and review such need when and where necessary.

The Bureau agrees with LRC’s recommendation against devising a statutory presumption or assignment to the effect that the adverse possessor become liable under the covenants in the Government lease, and LRC’s recommendation against changing the law on adverse possession on “Tso” land.

The Bureau has stated that: “The Government is studying the recommendations contained in the two relevant Law Reform Commission’s reports (the reports on Review of substantive sexual offences and Sentencing and Related Matters in the Review of Sexual Offences) in tandem. As the report on Review of substantive sexual offences involves over 70 recommendations, covering various complex legal principles and issues, it has to be studied carefully and holistically. The Government will make reference to the development of relevant legislation in overseas jurisdictions to formulate specific amendment proposals.

The Government will conduct public consultation on proposed amendments in due course and submit the proposals to the LegCo for consideration.”

Government response
(September 2022)

Latest position:
The Bureau has stated that: “The Government is studying the recommendations contained in the two relevant Law Reform Commission’s reports (the reports on Review of substantive sexual offences and Sentencing and Related Matters in the Review of Sexual Offences) in tandem, and will make reference to the development of relevant legislation in overseas jurisdictions to formulate specific legislative amendment. The Government will conduct public consultation on proposed legislative amendments in due course and submit the proposals to the LegCo for consideration.

In the report on Sentencing and Related Matters in the Review of Sexual Offences, the LRC recommended, among others, expanding the scope of the Sexual Conviction Record Check Scheme to cover existing employees, self-employed persons and volunteers. The Bureau agrees with the recommendation and will expand the scope to prospective self-employed persons from Q4 2024 as the first phase.”

Government response
(January 2024)

Latest position:
The Department of Justice has stated that: “The Department of Justice has formed a task force (‘Task Force’) chaired by the Deputy Solicitor General (Policy Affairs) to examine and consider whether the recommendations in the Report should be implemented and, if so, how.  Representatives from the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau, Health Bureau, Labour Department and the Department of Justice are members of the Task Force.  The Task Force held its first meeting on 15 December 2023.  The Task Force will further discuss the issues relating to the recommendations of the LRC.  The Government will then decide on the way forward in the light of the outcome of discussion and recommendations of the Task Force.”

The Bureau has stated that: “The relevant policy bureau at the time carefully studied the LRC Report in consultation with the Estate Agents Authority (EAA) after the Report was published in 1997.  As part of that exercise, the EAA conducted research into the law and practices of residential property sales in various jurisdictions (including New South Wales in Australia, British Columbia in Canada, England and Wales in the United Kingdom, and Mainland China).  The conclusion was that the recommended regulatory scheme would not be effective, as it would apply to estate agents only, not the vendors of overseas residential properties.

The LRC Report was prepared at a time when there was a surge in the volume of sales of non-local residential properties in Hong Kong, most prominently the sales of uncompleted residential properties situated in the Mainland.  Malpractices, insufficient information available to purchasers and projects where construction works were not completed were common at the time.  Given the outcome of the EAA’s research on the effectiveness of the recommended regulatory scheme, instead of implementing the recommendations as set out in the LRC Report, the Bureau adopted an alternative approach, under which the EAA and the Consumer Council stepped up their public education efforts to raise the awareness of the public on the risks of purchasing uncompleted residential properties situated outside Hong Kong.”

The Bureau has further observed that: “The result of stepping up public education efforts has been positive.  Complaints about the sales of uncompleted residential properties situated outside Hong Kong have dropped significantly over the years.  As such, the need for legislation to regulate the sales of non-local residential properties in Hong Kong does not seem imminent.

Furthermore, licensed estate agents need to comply with the relevant guidelines issued by the EAA, including the requirements concerning due diligence and record keeping, in handling the sale of uncompleted properties situated outside Hong Kong.  In end 2023, the EAA enhanced the guidelines, in particular by adding requirements in the areas of issuing advertisements and providing property information, with a view to further promoting the professionalism of licensed estate agents and offering better protection to consumers.  The new guidelines took effect on 1 July 2024.  As licensed estate agents are regulated by the EAA, consumers who appoint licensed estate agents to purchase non-local properties enjoy better protection.  The EAA has been advising the public the above information through various channels.

Regulating the sales of non-local residential properties conducted in Hong Kong involves complicated issues.  In particular, given the advancement of information technology since the publication of the LRC Report, it is now very easy for vendors of residential properties situated outside Hong Kong to directly carry out their sales and promotional activities in Hong Kong through the internet.  The question of legal jurisdiction is not an issue easy to resolve.

In light of the above, the Bureau did not pursue the specific recommendations of the 1997 LRC Report.

Government response
(November 2010)

Government response
(December 2012)

Latest position:
A ‘strict liability’ regime is recommended to give an additional basis for aggrieved parties to seek compensation for injuries and damages arising from unsafe products.  When the then Trade and Industry Panel of the LegCo was consulted in 1999, strong objection to the recommendations was raised from trade representatives.  Some considered it unfair to hold a party, such as an importer, liable if that party did not have full control over the safety of the product, while others were concerned about the likely increase in litigation and compliance costs.

Enduring powers of attorney: personal care  (July 2011)

Government response
(December 2011)

Government response
(December 2012)

Latest position:
The major recommendation of the LRC Report on Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPA): Personal Care is to introduce legislation to extend the scope of an EPA, (which currently under the EPA Ordinance (Cap. 501) only covers decisions relating to the property and financial affairs of the donor) to cover also decisions on a donor’s personal care. In this regard, the Department of Justice (DoJ) conducted a public consultation on a draft Continuing Powers of Attorney (CPA) Bill in December 2017. Among the 41 respondents, the majority supported the draft Bill and an overwhelming majority of them also suggested that life-sustaining treatment should be included in the scope of “personal care” in the draft Bill. DoJ handed over the subject to LWB in 2022.

LWB has reviewed the LRC recommendation taking into account the following –

(a) To the extent that “personal care matters” are covered by advance planning, which would typically entail “spending of the donor’s income or capital”, they are already within the scope of an EPA under the EPA Ordinance.

(b) More financial products covering personal care are now available in the market, such as medical insurance products, to facilitate advance decision by a donor as to how his income and capital are to be spent for personal care within the existing scope of an EPA.

(c) As regards the call for including life-sustaining treatment as a form of “personal care”, the concern can be addressed by the Advance Decision on Life-sustaining Treatment Bill introduced by the Health Bureau into the LegCo in end 2023, which provides a legal basis for advance medical directives on life-sustaining treatment.

The Bureau has stated that: “With the above developments, there is no pressing need to pursue the recommendation of the LRC Report on EPA: Personal Care. Since persons who may consider appointing an EPA are usually financially sufficient, from a welfare perspective, the LRC recommendation does not seem to warrant priority. The Government therefore has no plan to implement LRC’s recommendation at this juncture.”

Government response
(June 2021)

Latest position:
The Bureau has stated that: “The recommendations of the LRC Report on Excepted Offences may have implications on law and order as well as judicial procedures.  After further review, the Security Bureau does not consider it appropriate to repeal excepted offences in the near future.

The excepted offences regime was introduced in 1970s to respond to concerns of serious and violent crimes, and public sentiments that offenders of those crimes should not be treated leniently.  The presence of the excepted offences provides an effective deterrent to serious and violent crimes.  The recommendations in the LRC report were made at a time when the law and order situation was relatively stable.  The series of incidents of serious violence, unlawful activities and disturbances since June 2019 have severely damaged the law and order situation and completely reversed the crime trends to the worsening side in 2019 and 2020.  The sentiments for strong deterrence in sentencing have never been stronger at the moment, so has the case for rebuilding the law abiding culture in Hong Kong.