TNAG-0109-FCO40-145-Detainees-and-prisoners-following-19671968-disturbances-1968 — Page 39

The second ground, that the cases of the detainees were carefully examined by law officers, is valueless unless we know the evidence which those officers thought sufficient.

If we accept that all those charged by prosecuting authorities are guilty we may as well dispense with courts altogether.

11

Thirdly it is argued that while Mr. Grey has had no chance to plead his case before any authority the "detainees have all had a chance to appeal to an independent Committee of Review." This is given the lie by a published letter to the Hong Kong Bar Association of October 11, 1967, by the Solicitor General, writing with the approval of the Attorney General, where he said that the Committee was not an appellate body. "On the contrary, I consider that the functions of the Committee are exclusively administrative and advisory, not supervisory. It is difficult to see how the independence of the Committee may be judged when the names of its members have never been published. The decision as to detention remains entirely in the discretion of the Colonial Secretary. detainee is to be told only as much of the charge against him as the Colonial Secretary deems fit, not necessarily sufficient for the detainee to meet that charge, while legal representation is entirely at the discretion of the Committee. So much for the right of appeal.

The

The Hong Kong Government then argues that Mr. Grey's position as different in that he does not know when he is to be released. This is made nonsense of by the admission which follows that the detention orders (of one years' duration) may be, and have been, renewed.

The final appeal is for sympathy that in the application of these immoderate laws the Hong Kong Government has exercised moderation. To this the Chinese Covernment are in the position to reply that it is they who have been moderate by detaining only ten persons without trial and opposed to 54.

We may readily admit that emergencies may require deviation from normal legal procedures, but nothing can justify taking powers more absolute than those given to the Home Secretary under the

}