Background
1. During January and February 1990 a number of leading liberals in Hong Kong (from the United Democrats of Hong Kong) conducted marches to demonstrate against, interalia, the Basic Law. They used loudhailers during the processions
and demonstrations and also collected money from the public.
The use of loudhailers and the collection of money is governed by the Summary Offences Ordinance and permits are required. None of the protests had the permits. During the various protests the police repeatedly warned those involved that they were in breach of the law and that they should desist. They did not. The police therefore took prosecution action.
They have
2. The timing of these cases is unfortunate. coincided with the introduction of the Bill of Rights and also were seen by some sections of the public as having deliberately come before the courts at around the time of the anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre. In fact the reason for the delay in coming to court was purely a function of the waiting times in the Magistracies.
3. It has been suggested that these offences under the Summary Offences Ordinance may be in conflict with the Bill of Rights. Our Legal Advisers have advised that they are not in principle in conflict and in any event the Hong Kong Government have made it clear that all existing legislation is currently being reviewed to ensure that is compatible with the Bill of Rights. The Hong Kong Government has also made it clear that they view the control of the use of loudspeakers in public as important in Hong Kong's highly urbanised environment. Permits to collect money in public have long been issued by the Director of Social Welfare to ensure that only bona fide organisations are allowed to
SIFALF/2
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.