ра
ян
جحا
ΙΣ
THE TIMES
Cutting dated
- 2 DEC 1968
19
HELD IN HONGKONG
From Mr. Henry Litton
Sir,-On November 14 you published a letter from Mr. P. C. M. Sedgwick. Director of the Hong Kong Government Office in London, concerning Mr. John Rear's criticism (November 11) of the British Gov- ernment's attitude over detainees in Hong Kong.
It seems to the Bar Committee of the Hong Kong Bar Association that Mr. Sedg- wick's letter in no way refutes the point made by Mr. Rear; it merely brings into prominence the inconsistency in the British Government's attitude on the Emergency Regulations prevailing in Hong Kong that Mr. Rear has attacked.
at
Mr. Rear's point seems simple enough: the Hong Kong Government has present totalitarian powers over the people of Hong Kong in the form of Emergency Regulations and in particular Regulation 31 of the Emergency (Principal) Regula- tions which permits the Colonial Secretary to detain any person for a period of up to one year without trial, without expressing any reasons, without having any reasons. There is no requirement for the detainee to be given any reasons for his detention.
At the expiration of one year the deten- tion could be forthwith renewed. The Hong Kong Government has, as we know, used these totalitarian powers so that to this day (nearly a year after the emergency has ended) we are told that there are still some 40 or 50 persons under detention.
The powers which the Hong Kong Gov- ernment have at present over the liberty of the people of Hong Kong are as absolute as have ever been devised in the history of democratic government. The fact that the powers have, as we are informed. been used with discretion does not make the
exercise of such powers any more justifi- able-which, as the Bar Committee under- stands it, is precisely the point made in Mr. John Rear's letter.
In taking issue with Mr. Rear, Mr. Sedg- wick states that while detainees have never been publicly accused they have nevertheless all been accused and their cases were most carefully examined by law officers before Detention Orders were issued ". The Bar Committee views with some alarm the fact that the Hong Kong Government's spokesman in London seems to think that bland assurances of this sort could be a substitute for the rule of law.
The evil of the Emergency Regulations is that it leaves it to the benevolence of the Hong Kong Government to observe the basic principles of the rule of law without making it a legal requirement. If it is indeed the intention of the Hong Kong Government that detainees should be told what accusations have been made against them and should have their cases most carefully examined by law officers", then it is not beyond the ingenuity of the Attor- ney General's department so to frame the Emergency Regulations that the basic rules of natural justice are required to be observed before Detention Orders become lawful.
65
The very fact that the Regulations are not framed in this way tends to suggest that the Hong Kong Government reserves to itself a complete discretion to act with- out legal restraint of any sort and the citizen is left with no better safeguard than to hope that the Colonial Secretary would exercise his powers benevolently.
Mr. Sedgwick's letter makes the further point that detainees have all had સ chance to appeal to an independent com. mittee of review “. It is not clear whether the statement refers to the Committee of Review constituted under the Emergency Regulations or Somc other committee which the Colonial Secretary has constitu- ted. If it refers to the former then the statement is not a correct representation of the provisions of Regulation 31 of the Emergency (Principal) Regulations and of the Emergency (Committee of Review} Rules made thereunder.
The Government's statement refers to an
of Review “.· "independent Committee Under the Emergency Regulations the chairman and members of the committee are appointed by the Governor. The appointments are not gazetted and the identity of the committee has never been made public. The committee is not appellate body and cannot act as such: its functions are merely to make "recom mendations to the Colonial Secretary if any detainee objects against a Detention Order. The Colonial Secretary is perfectly at liberty to reject its "recommendations
an
The last point made in Mr. Sedgwick's letter is that Detention Orders are for one year, suggesting thereby that there is some terminal point beyond which the powers of the Colonial Secretary to order the detention of a person must come to an end. This is simply not the case. Although Regulation 31 authorizes detention for one year there is nothing to prevent the renewed detention of a person simultaneously upon his release thereby in effect making the detention perpetually renewable from year to year.
It seems to the Bar Committee that whilst there is every justification for the Hong Kong Government to assume Emergency powers in times of emergency. attempts by the Hong Kong Government to justify the exercise of those powers in terms of regularity when the emergency has passed must give cause for great concern. if it is the Hong Kong Government's intention that persons be detained political grounds on charges being laid and their cases being most carefully examined by law officers then legal provisions can and should be made to this effect. If the Hong Kong Government's attitude is that such provisions are no longer necessary because the emergency has passed then the be Emergency Regulations ought repealed forthwith.
to
ол
Yours faithfully, HENRY LITTON, Secretary, Hong
Kong Bar Association.
218 Marina House, Hong Kong, Nov. 26,
LART
REF.
25
REXT
61A
ZEF.
RECEIVED IN ARCHIVES No.31
-3DEC 1968
HIRR I/18
наках
1371
59