CONFIDENTIAL
121732
MDLOAN 7484
TOP COPY
19
HKC
241/4
Q DIST?
CONFIDENTIAL
FM FCO
TO PRIORITY HONG KONG
TELNO 223
OF 13110OZ FEBRUARY 92
AND TO PRIORITY PEKING, UKREP JLG HONG KONG
см
میر
YOUR TELNOS 148, 212 AND PEKING TELNO 90: BILL OF RIGHTS: REVIEW OF LEGISLATION: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SOCIETIES ORDINANCE
a
1 WE AGREE WITH YOUR VIEW (FIRST TUR PARA 3) THAT THE PRESENT REGISTRATION SYSTEM AND THE WIDE DISCRETION TO REFUSE REGISTRATION OF SOCIETIES UNDER THE ORDINANCE COULD WELL BE SEEN BY THE COURTS AS AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO ''FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION'' UNDER ARTICLE 18 OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS (BOR), AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES AMENDMENT BEFORE THE
''FREEZE t t EXPIRES.
2.
WE AGREE THAT YOU SHOULD CONSULT EXCO ON THE APPROACH SET OUT IN FIRST TUR. WE WOULD BE INTERESTED TO SEE THE DRAFT AMENDMENT BILL WHEN IT IS READY. WITHOUT SEEING THE PROPOSALS IN DETAIL IT IS DIFFICULT TO OFFER SPECIFIC COMMENTS, BUT THE FOLLOWING POINTS OCCUR TO US AT THIS STAGE AND MAY BE USEFUL IN FURTHER REFINING YOUR APPROACH: IN PRINCIPLE, WE SEE NO OBJECTION TO A REQUIREMENT FOR SOCIETIES TO NOTIFY THEIR ESTABLISHMENT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (CP). IN SECOND TUR (PARA 1), YOU REFER TO COMPANIES. WHAT
SCOPE IS THERE FOR SOCIETIES (EG TRIADS) TO REGISTER AS ''COMPANIES'' THEREBY AVOIDING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
SOCIETIES ORDINANCE?
,
IT
AT
- YOU PROPOSE THAT FAILURE TO NOTIFY WILL BE AN OFFENCE, BUT THAT SOCIETIES WHICH DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT WILL NOT BE REGARDED AS UNLAWFUL AUTOMATICALLY. IS NOT CLEAR WHO WOULD BE GUILTY OF THE OFFENCE OF NON-NOTIFICATION, OR WHAT THE MAXIMUM PENALTIES WOULD BE. PRESENT, EVERY SOCIETY WHICH IS NEITHER REGISTERED NOR EXEMPT IS DEEMED TO BE UNLAWFUL, AND IT IS AN OFFENCE TO BE AN OFFICE-BEARER OF AN UNLAWFUL SOCIETY, PUNISHABLE BY UP TO FIVE YEARS IMPRISONMENT. WE IMAGINE YOU WILL INTRODUCE A LOWER MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR NON-NOTIFICATION.
IT IS NOT CLEAR IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES A NON-NOTIFIED SOCIETY
PAGE
1
CONFIDENTIAL