TNAG-0112-FCO40-148-Detainees-and-prisoners-following-19671968-disturbances-1969 — Page 98

Reference..

with (186)

Flag A

126

Flags B, and

2/25

Mr. Godden

A reply is required to the attached letter from

Mr. John Tilney, MP., to Lord Shepherd. A draft is

attached which has been the subject of consultation with legal advisers (Mr. Cruchley). It will be

seen from one of the enclosures to his letter that

Mr. Tilney has already discussed the subject matter

of this correspondence with Sir David Trench and we can, therefore, take it that he is well acquainted

with the background and the difficulties involved, The letters from Mr. Litton to Mr. Tilney are a continuation of the campaign against emergency regulations which began with a letter to The Times of 11 November, 1968 from Mr. John Rear of the University of Hong Kong. The principal items of that correspondence are attached.

2.

Mr. Litton's main arguments appear to be twofold,

viz: that

(a)

emergency powers are no longer required in the eased situation in the Colony;

(b)

if, in the case of the power of detention,

the provisions of Regulation 31 of the

Principal Emergency Regulations were brought into line with the provisions of the

Emergency (Deportation and Detention)

Regulations there would be greater safe- guards.

3. The draft is directed towards replying to these points. Mr. Cruchley has pointed out, with regard to (b), that in law (although not in practice) there

is one important difference between the procedures

in Regulation 31 and in the Deportation and Detention

Regulations. The former do not lay down as an

entitlement that the detainee should be told the

reasons for his detention. (As you know, it is, however, the practice to do so). r. Cruchley says that such an entitlement is usual in emergency regulations. This is something we must look into.

in the respect I suspect that, the Hong Kong Principal Emergency Regulations, which date back to 1956, may be out of

date and out of line with other more recent colonial emergency legislation. Since invariable practice makes up for lack of entitlement on this point, I do

not think that this vitiates the observation in

paragraph 4 ...