1991-01-21 10:15
SECURITY BRANCH
Abuse of Court's Process
0JZ 000 JU14
2
The first argument under this head is that the three separate occasions made Hong Kong Government on representations that the use of loudhailers in Hong Kong was not banned.
when
the
It is said the first representation was made that Section 4 (29) accepted Government contravened or might contravene the draft Bill of Rights Even if and consideration was given to its repeal.
there was such
cannot
an
in
indication from the Government,
to
an
undertaking
it
that
view amount my contravention of an existing and valid sub-section is to be disregarded.
The second representation, it is submitted, is in the form of a statement of Her Majesty's Government in its Third Periodic Report on behalf of the Hong Kong
Committee United the
Government
to
Nations
equipment,
01 Human
other
Rights pursuant to Paragraph 40 of the International In that Report Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. it is expressly stated that "general guidelines under than which use of amplification hand-held loudhailers, might be banned", thereby making clear representation that the use of loudhailers in Hong There again, if there is A Kong would not be banned.
it is not a representation that representation at all, an existing law is not to be enforced.
relates to The third representation
According to D2's evidence,
what
police officers said. Chief Inspector in 1988 had told him the police would D5's evidence is that D2
be given by
by the
warn him but not prosecute.
had
told him formal warnings would
Page 120Page 121
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.