so.
5. The field in which Hong Kong may act regarding matters of national security, or at least where I assume they would not want to be deprived of a possible defence based on national security to allegations of a violation of the BOR, is not exhausted by the scope of Article 23 of the BL. Whether alone or in cooperation with the authorities of the PRC, and notwithstanding the responsibility of the PRC for defence, the SAR police will no doubt keep surveillance on suspected terrorists and may well indulge in wire-tapping to do
The SAR authorities may well use the Cinematograph Ordinance to avoid the propagation of matters critical of the CPG. Some such measures may well be exclusivly concerned with the security of Hong Kong, but, as with seditious acts, they may be primarily or exclusively concerned with security at a national level. To confine "national security" to the security of Hong Kong would, therefore, not only be inconsistent the Covenant, but it would also deprive Hong Kong of the legal defences it needs in particular in respect of the functions conferred on the SAR by Article 23 of the BL.
6. When Hong Kong becomes part of a unitary state, it is probably unnecessary to include an express provision to the effect that national security includes the security of Hong Kong. The proximity with the rest of China would make that superfluous. (In answering such a case as is referred to in paragraph 2 of HK telno 1583, the action complained of might well be justified under the heading of public safety or public order.) Until 1997, however, such a provision is necessary to answer the argument that nothing done in Hong Kong can affect the national security of the United Kingdom and therefore the defence of national security is not available as regards steps taken eg to combat international terrorism.
Public emergencies
7. The "life of the nation" undoubtedly refers to a threat of nationwide dimensions ( "an exceptional situation of crisis or emergency.
.which affects the whole population, and constitutes a threat to the organized life....of the community of which the state. is composed": ECourtHR in the Lawless case) though it would not seem to follow that the threat has to be the same, or of the same intensity, throughout the state. It is true that the United Kingdom has derogated from the ECHR in respect of particular dependant territories, and that bills of rights for dependencies provide for local derogation (see the Bermuda Constitution, Article 14). In a unitary state, however, it would seem to be implicit in the concept of a nation wide threat that the existence of the threat would be judged by the Lawless test and that the danger could only be assessed by the Central Authorities; the power to proclaim the emergency must
3
Page 120Page 121
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.