ARTICLE 19 and The Hong Kong Journalists Association
The wide language of the subsection appears to be nothing more that an invitation to the authorities to "catch all material that has any relevance to the suspected offence, however marginal the relevance and however minor the arrestable offence".31 It also permits the violation of property on the grounds that a person is only reasonably suspected of having committed an offence.
Section 50(7) has made it relatively simple for the authorities to force members of the media to furnish information gathered during the course of their work. This has important implications for freedom of expression. Journalism is recognized as the exercise by occupation of a citizen's right to freedom of expression, a journalist's recognized function being to keep the community informed on matters of legitimate public interest. Although, as some have argued, the tapes seized in this case were material gathered in the public domain (and therefore of no confidential value), the precedent of seizing journalistic material with such apparent ease threatens the media's ability freely and safely to gather such information. Further it jeopardizes the journalists' ability to protect other more confidential material, including information which the public has a right to know. Can the media be entrusted with confidential sources of information, can it be independent, if the authorities can, with impunity, search for and seize any journalistic material?
Police powers of search and seizure of journalistic material are more limited in the corresponding British Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act of 1984.32 An amendment along the lines of PACE was put forward by the United Democrats of Hong Kong during the debate on the Police Force (Amendment) Bill in June 1992, but it was defeated. However, the government explained that it wished to reserve judgement on the question of such changes. until it had an opportunity to study the recommendations of a Law Reform Commission (LRC) report on the matter. Released in late 1992 the LRC report on arrest recommends the relevant provisions of PACE be adopted in their entirety. However, it will be some time before it becomes clear how far the administration will be prepared to accept these recommendations, not to say introduce amending legislation.
33
31
Legal counsel to the HKJA on the seizure.
32
The HKJA has said that the relevant provisions of PACE may not be a sufficient basis for the reform of the Police Force Ordinance. See "Brief Summary of UK Legislation on Seizure of Journalistic Material", an internal paper presented by the HKJA to the Legislative Council's sub-group studying the Bill of Rights, on 9 Jan. 1990. ARTICLE 19 has expressed concern about the use of PACE in the UK to compel journalists to hand over their material. See, Freedom of Expression and Information in the United Kingdom (London: ARTICLE 19, 1991).
33
The government is not bound to adopt recommendations put forward by the LRC. Nor does it necessarily feel bound to implement quickly those it does adopt; in some cases, it has taken several years before amending legislation has reached the Legislative Council.
44