From:
Paul Fifoot
HKB G11
15
Legal Advisers
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY
25 JUN1990
Date:
19 June 1990
CC Mr Paul, HKD
Mr Stone, HKD
MP'S LETTER: PROSECUTIONS: EFFECT OF BILL OF RIGHTS
1.
I do not think that either section 4 (29) of the Summary Offences Ordinance or section 5(1)(b) of the Noise Control Ordinance (both of which deal with amplifying equipment) are of themselves inconsistent with Article 19 of the Covenant or with the corresponding provision of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. It does not appear to be alleged that section 4 (17) of the Summary offences Ordinance (which deals with collecting in public) is inconsistent with those provisions.
2. All three laws seem to me to be capable of being defended as necessary for respect of the rights of others or for the protection of public order. However, I think that action or inaction under section 4 (29) of the Summary Offences Ordinance is capable of being inconsistent with Article 19 if the refusal to give permission, or the conditions attached to permission were oppressive, capricious, or discriminatory. I can make no judgment of this kind in the present cases.
3. Penalties under the Summary Offences Ordinance are a maximum of a fine of HK$300 or three months imprisonment. Penalties under the Noise Control Ordinance are a fine of HK$500 only. Under the Legislative Council (Electoral Provisions) Ordinance, an elector is disqualified if he has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding six months and has not served his sentence. A candidate is disqualified if within ten years he has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding three months without the option of a fine or if on nomination or election day he is serving a sentence of imprisonment. These provisions would not be applicable to anybody sentenced under the Summary Offences Ordinance or the Noise Control Ordinance save in the, unlikely, event of his serving a sentence on nomination or election day.
2PFAAV
Paul Fifoot
13