NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
W(B)L 51-7406
CONFIDENT IAL
(1) That although the Supreme Court of
Hong Kong has very wide inherent powers of
clearing the court and punishing for contempt,
neither a district judge nor magistrate has
such inherent power.
(2) That although in times of emergency the
conferring of such extensive powers on sub-
ordinate courts might be justified, it is very
questionable whether such justification exists
in normal times, even in the particular
circumstances of Hong Kong.
(3) That Sections 122 and 123 appear to confer
powers, both on the Supreme Court and on sub-
which are
ordinate courtsider even than the present
inherent powers of the Supreme Court.
(1) That the two sections in question enable
members of the public to be excluded from the
court both during the hearing of a case and
The
during the announcement of the verdict.
conferring of such a power is, so far as is known,
unprecedented in the British system of law.
It
1
also departs from the principle of Article 6(1)
of the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which was
allthough
ratified by Her Majesty's Government in 1951
Majes
this Cangention has not been applied to Hong Kong) = ?
hat so far as Section 122 is concerned, it is
true that the press cannot be excluded either from
the hearing of a case or during the announcement of
the verdict. But this will not enable relatives
and friends of the accused actually to see verdict
accused
passed on the latter; nor will it necessarily
ensure that they will know what has happened to
the accused.
(a)
This is because:
press might not report the result of
the case;
/(b)