TNAG-0969-FCO40-1188-Human-rights-in-Hong-Kong-1980 — Page 27

!

1. The police" action was unlawful, since they used

violence to enter Lot 15 which was private land. People of Lot 15 had every single right to protect their own land, especially when it was clear that

it was unnecessary for the police to enter Let 16

through Lot 15. The magistrate should not assume that the people of the two lots were "one armed camp"

2. People should not be charged with unlawful assembly since they were inside their own homes on private boundary. Unlawful assembly which is under the

Public Order Ordinance can only be used to protect "public" order.

1.0

But the offert of the two counsels were wasted. Most their major arguments were rejected and the power of the police was once again reinforced by the court 1.e. their entry into private land was lawful. Charges against three appellants were dismissed ( including Mr Yu Tit Shan, the assumed laader). Most of the other convictions were retained with only a little gain in lighter sentence. But four appellants still had to be jailed from three months to twelve months.

to't

(Appendix 10)

2. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE EVENT / VIOLATIONS OF THE COVENANT

A) Police Brutality

ក

Iandeiately after the notification of clearance was issued to the residents of Lot 16 on May 21, there were continuous negotiations among Government Departments, the landlord and the residents. Although all the time the Government Departments spoke for the landlord and neglected the benefits of the residents, the case could have been settled more peacefully if the residents were fairly and justly treated. The use of teargas bombs was unnecessary, (Remark: In mid-July, two months after the incident, the landlord compensated 121 thousands dollars to the 7 families of the demolished huts

and another 20 thousand dollars to the other residents who were involved and injured by the police. This to some extent reflected the guilt feeling of the landlord.)

- 16 -

>