FROM MR AR. DICKS
SOUTH CHINA MORNING PORT,
November 16, 1953
"Now that the full text of Mr Rear's letter is avail- able here, it becomes clear, as one suspected, that your editorial, like the ill-considered Government statement which followed hot on its heels, missed the essentially simple point that Mr Rear was at pains to make.
"Mr Rear did not in any way condone or excuse the injustice of Anthony Grey's detention, nor did he suggest that those responsible for incarcerating Hongkong's detainees had any but the best of reasons for so doing. He nowhere denied the need which you emphasised for "strong action for the sake of the community's survival". Surely his point is that in the sheer arbitrariness with which both the Chinese and the Hongkong authorities act in these matters there are enough parallels to make it very difficult for the latter to lay claim to the monopoly of civilised, legalistic procedures that the British official statements have implied,
"For some 200 years it has been the more or less consistent policy of British Governments to advance the legal standards of international behaviour, and it is in a large measure due to British efforts over this per
that there is now a clear rule of inter- national to the effect that the imprisonment of aliens w. the advantage of proper judicial pro- ceedings c hts of appeal constitutes a wrongful denial of
This elementary rule of law, known to every first year law student, has been upheld in dozens, if not hundreds, of judgments of international courts and arbitration tribunals,
se.
"Whether from the point of negotiations with China or from the point of view of Britain's posture generally, it seems, to say the very least, unfortunate that Her Majesty's Goverment should be put in the position of being unable to live up to the ordinary standards of international behaviour simply because of the unnecessarily crude and arbitary nature of the powers of detention exercised by the Hongkong Government.
"The Government statement which you publish in part this morning (Nov 14) does little to reassure us on this point. The Government Information Service, of course, does not consist of lawyers, and we must therefore hope for a better informed review of the position from the Attorney-General at some stage. Some points made by the Government statement call for immediate comment, however,
"In the first place, the fact that the detainees were accused in private and that these cases "were most carefully examined by law officers before detention orders were issued" is no substitute for the determination of facts by a proper judicial body. Any determination by Government officials can only result in the Government as a whole becoming prosec- utor, judge and jury in its own cause, contrary to one of the cardinal rules of national justice.