C.
HICC 241/4
CODE 18-77
Dr Harkin
HKD (WH 305)
From: Ms J Barrett
Reference
см
Assistant Legal Adviser K 174 270 3381
Date: 31 January 1992
HONG KONG BILL OF RIGHTS: REVIEW OF LEGISLATION: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SOCIETIES ORDINANCE
î.
I agree with Hong Kong's view that the present registration system and the wide discretion to refuse registration of societies under the Ordinance are an infringement of the right to "freedom of association" under Article 18 BOR (Telno 148, para 3), and consequently the Ordinance requires amendment before the "freeze" expires.
2.
I also agree that the retention of some form of control on the activities of societies may be permitted by Article 18. In principle, I see no objection to a requirement for societies to notify their establishment to the Commissioner of Police (CP). Like Peking I would also like to know what is meant by societies and associations "which are not otherwise approved or regulated" (Telno 148, paragraph 4).
3. Hong Kong propose that failure to notify will be an offence, but that societies which do not comply with the notification requirement will not, however, be regarded as unlawful automatically. It is not clear who would be guilty of the offence of non-notification, nor have they indicated what the maximum penalties would be. At 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 5 years imprisonment. imagine that HK will introduce a lower maximum penalty for non-notification, but we should ask them what they have in
mind.
I
4. It is not clear in what circumstances a non-notified society might be treated as unlawful. Paragraph 5 of TUR proposes a power to prohibit the continued operation of a society, whether notified or not, on the specific grounds. permitted by Article 18 BOR. Failure to notify would therefore be immaterial to the exercise of that power. Is it intended that non-notification could in any circumstances be a ground for treating a society as unlawful? If not, what would the CP do about a society whose activities were lawful but whose leaders still refused to notify it even after conviction for non-notification?
I assume that under the amended Ordinance it would not be an offence to be a member of an unnotified society, unless it
5.