TNAG-0232-FCO40-268-Legislation-relating-to-registration-of-trade-unions-in-Hong-1970 — Page 130

to be prosecuted Successfully

4. Te agrument, that such offences are ill-defined is, I think, sufficient in itself to make redrafting essential. They raise other arguments, however, which also have some validity, in particular the point you refer to in para 7 of your minute of 10 September that the Public Order Ordinance (Cap 245) Part IV is widely enough phrased to enable even a responsible and peaceable T.U. leader taking part in peaceful picketing/merely if a few agitators disrupt the picket. It is said that Cap 245 allows such peaceful participants in a demonstration that gets out of hand, in no way due to their activities, to be penalised in a way in which the English Common Law on unlawful assembly does not. It seems to me that Cap 245 can be read in this way e.g. s. 18 (3) which applies penalties to those "taking part" in an unlawful assembly because the definition of unlawful assembly in s. 18 (1) does not contain all the requirements of mens rea (guilty intent) that the common law does, e.g. a common purpose and an intent to assist one another, by force, if necessary, in the execution of that purpose. There is therefore more danger that relatively innocent people might be convicted and so become debarred from T.U. office under the draft Bill.

5. There is more that could be said here and I do not accept all the memo says on the subject, but I think they are right that the inclusion of offences against public order makes the provision too vague and, quite likely, too wide. I would therefore suggest 12 (c) should be amended by deleting the words "or against public order".

6.

Legislation on Picketing

There is no doubt that Hong Kong law is at the moment more restrictive on this question than UK law and that the proposed changes will widen and not bridge that gap. The question is not so much a legal as a political one as you point out, conditions are different in Hong Kong. It is however a matter of legal concern that the right of individuals including the right to strick and picket should not be so circumscribed as to be illusory. suggested changes do indeed clarify the law but they clarify it in every instance by way of a restriction on picketing.

7.

The

I imagine that Mr. Royle will in any event be listening to representations rather than stating a view- point on Thursday. In view of the many and difficult points involved in this point and in the other suggestions in the memo I should be grateful if the files could be returned to me after Thursday's meeting, as I should like to discuss the matter with Mr. Steel who has now returned to the office.

M.R. Eaton

(M. R. Eaton)

29 September, 1970