WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 1993
MR PRESIDENT, I HOPE THAT HONOURABLE MEMBERS WILL NOT MISUNDERSTAND IF, EVEN AT THIS EARLY STAGE, I SOUND A NOTE OF WARNING AND ECHOED SOME OF THE REMARKS MADE THIS EVENING. PACE HAS NOT BEEN A PANACEA IN THE UNITED KINGDOM; THE LEGAL PROFESSION, SENIOR POLICE OFFICERS AND SOME MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY HAVE PUBLICLY VOICED THEIR RESERVATIONS, THERE ARE ALSO DIFFERENCES IN THE SOCIAL ILLS PERCEIVED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM PRIOR TO 1984, WHEN PACE WAS INTRODUCED, AND THOSE IN HONG KONG TODAY. PACE WAS INTRODUCED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AT A TIME WHEN THE POLICE FORCES THERE WERE FAR FROM HOMOGENOUS, AND THERE WAS INCREASING CRIME AND RACIAL TENSION IN THE COUNTRY. THERE WERE ALSO DOUBTS ABOUT THE WAY IN WHICH THE POLICE THERE HANDLED SOME INVESTIGATIONS. A NUMBER OF HIGH PROFILE CASES, WHICH HAD RESULTED IN THE IMPRISONMENT OF PEOPLE, HAD SERIOUSLY CALLED INTO QUESTION POLICE POWERS. THESE FACTORS ARE NOT PRESENT IN HONG KONG WHICH, UNLIKE THE UNITED KINGDOM, HAS ENJOYED A COMPARATIVELY LOW RATE OF CRIME FOR MANY YEARS, FREE FROM RACIAL TENSION.
UNLIKE HONG KONG, THE UNITED KINGDOM DOES NOT HAVE A DOMESTIC BILL OF RIGHTS AND THIS MADE IT EVEN MORE IMPORTANT FOR THE LAWS THERE TO SET OUT CLEAR LIMITS ON POLICE POWERS AND THE SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ABUSE. ON THE OTHER HAND, WE DO HAVE A BILL OF RIGHTS IN HONG KONG WHICH, AMONGST OTHER THINGS, DOES SET LIMITS ON POLICE POWERS AND PROVIDES SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ABUSE.
THERE ARE DIFFERENCES IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH APPLIED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM PRIOR TO 1984 AND THOSE WHICH EXIST IN HONG KONG NOW. THEREFORE, WE MUST BE CAUTIOUS IN OUR APPROACH TO THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION'S REPORT.
OF 60
NEVERTHELESS, MR PRESIDENT, WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS MUCH IN PACE, WHICH HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION AS BEING BENEFIT ΤΟ HONG KONG. WE WILL NEED ΤΟ STUDY CAREFULLY THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE REPORT IN GREATER DETAIL BEFORE WE CAN MAKE SPECIFIC PROPOSALS. WE HAVE, THEREFORE, SET UP AN INTER-DEPARTMENTAL WORKING GROUP, CHAIRED BY MYSELF, WITH SENIOR REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE DISCIPLINED SERVICES AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CHAMBERS.
THE WORKING GROUP HAS ALREADY STARTED WORK. THE ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED ARE COMPLEX, BUT WE HAVE AGREED THAT THIS MUST BE A MATTER OF PRIORITY. AT THIS STAGE, I CANNOT PREDICT HOW LONG OUR DELIBERATIONS WILL TAKE, BUT I HOPE THAT, ONCE WE HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR A LITTLE TIME, THE SCALE OF THE TASK WILL BECOME CLEARER AND I WILL THEN BE ABLE TO FORECAST COMPLETION,
WE HAVE, HOWEVER, AGREED THAT SEVERAL PRINCIPLES SHOULD GOVERN OUR EXAMINATION OF THE REPORT. FIRST, WE MUST ENSURE THAT ANY PROPOSALS WE MAKE ON ITS RECOMMENDATIONS WILL NOT HINDER THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DISCIPLINARY SERVICES IN MAINTAINING LAW AND ORDER. I AM REFERRING HERE NOT ONLY TO THE POWER то INVESTIGATE CRIMES WHICH HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, BUT ALSO TO THE POWER ΤΟ PREVENT CRIMES FROM HAPPENING, SUCH AS THE POWER TO STOP AND SEARCH A PERSON AND TO SET ROAD BLOCKS.
SECOND, ANY OF OUR PROPOSALS SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS ORDINANCE. WE NEED TO STEER A CAREFUL BALANCE BETWEEN THE NEED FOR EFFECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
/THIRD, THE