TNAG-1688-FCO40-2338-Hong-Kong-legislation-regarding-the-control-of-publications--1987 — Page 109

(E)

RESTRICTED

THE LEGISLATION WAS DANGEROUS TO PRESS FREEDOM AND

AGAINST COMMON LAW PRINCIPLES.

45487 - 2

3.

MR RENTON RESPONDED THAT:

(A)

(B).

(C)

(D)

(E)

(F)

THE 11 MARCH LEGISLATION HAD BEEN THE SUBJECT OF WIDE

CONSULTATION AND A VERY FULL DEBATE. THE AMENDMENT HAD

BEEN AGREED TO IN RESPONSE TO HKJA REPRESENTATIONS. (HE

NOTED THAT IMPORTANT AMENDMENTS TO WESTMINSTER BILLS WERE

FREQUENTLY TABLED ONLY THE DAY BEFORE THEIR ADOPTION BY

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.)

THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT HAD TAKEN THE VIEW THAT IN THE

CIRCUMSTANCES OF HONG KONG, ONE RESTRAINT ON THE

DISSEMINATION OF FALSE NEWS SHOULD BE MAINTAINED, IN THE

INTERESTS OF PUBLIC ORDER. THEY HAD TRANSFERRED IT FROM

THE ORDINANCE DEALING WITH PUBLICATIONS TO THAT DEALING

WITH PUBLIC ORDER TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THAT WAS THE

INTENTION. THIS ALL SEEMED QUITE REASONABLE, AND WAS THE

SORT OF QUESTION WE PROPERLY LEFT TO THE HKG AND LEGCO TO

DECIDE.

WE WERE IN NO DOUBT THAT LEG CO WAS A BODY FULLY CAPABLE

OF SPEAKING OUT ROBUSTLY AND VIGOROUSLY ON ALL HONG KONG

ISSUES. THE HONG KONG PEOPLE WOULD HAVE A FULL

OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS ON FUTURE

CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE GREEN PAPER

LATER THIS YEAR.

WE COULD CATEGORICALLY DENY THAT THE LEGISLATION HAD BEEN

INTRODUCED IN RESPONSE TO ANY KIND OF PRESSURE FROM THE

CHINESE GOVERNMENT.

THE FALSE NEWS PROVISION SEEMED SOUND ENOUGH TO US: THE

BURDEN OF PROOF WAS ON THE PROSECUTION TO SHOW BEYOND

REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THERE HAD BEEN PUBLICATION, THAT

THE NEWS WAS FALSE, AND THAT IT WAS LIKELY TO CAUSE ALARM

OR DISTURB PUBLIC ORDER. THE ACCUSED WAS GIVEN A DEFENCE

OF PROVING THAT HE HAD REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR BELIEVING

THAT THE NEWS WAS TRUE.

WE HAD FULL CONFIDENCE THAT THE JOINT DECLARATION WOULD

BE FULLY IMPLEMENTED, SO THAT THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO

2

RESTRICTED