2
has been following; the emergency regulations dealing with intimidation, dispersal of assemblies, prohibition of meetings, fireworks (to name a few examples) have all been revoked following upon the enactment of stronger permanent legislation relating to the control of these matters.
In his letter to you of 31 December Mr. Litton draws a comparison between the procedures set out in the Emergency (Deportation and Detention) Regulations and in Regulation 31 of the Principal Emergency Regulations. The former are designed to deal with quite a different set of circumstances. They relate only to aliens whose deportation has proved impracticable, and cannot be applied to persons who possess British status. They are not intended to meet the same requirements of urgency and speed which are essential in a situation such as that posed by the events of 1967.
In any case the procedures are not so very different. All persons detained under Regulation 31 have been told of the reasons for their detention. They have been told of their right to make objections against their detention to the Committee of Review set up under the regulations for this purpose. That Committee admittedly is and must be an advisory body (as is the Tribunal set up under the Deportation and Detention Regulations), since it is the Governor who is ultimately responsible to the Secretary of State and Parliament for the internal security of Hong Kong and the decision must therefore be his.
I fully understand the point of principle raised by Mr. Litton, but the fact is that emergency legislation must often provide, in a serious situation affecting the security of the state, additional powers for the executive and a derogation from the normal processes
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.