63.
Mr. POCAR said that Mr. Fearn's replies met most of his concerns on the right of peaceful assembly. However, with regard to the Public Order Ordinance, it seemed that, notwithstanding available remedies, the Commissioner of Police had wide discretionary powers for the control of public meetings and, according to certain information, had availed himself of them. Although article 21 stated that restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly could be imposed in conformity with the law for certain reasons, the purpose of that provision and of similar provisions in the Covenant was to have the restrictions specifically indicated in the law and to reduce the discretionary powers of public authorities. In his view, a legal provision simply giving discretionary powers to police authorities was not consistent with the Covenant, even if the grounds that the authorities might invoke to restrict the right were those indicated in article 21 of the Covenant. He asked the United Kingdom delegation to comment on that point.
64.
Mr. COORAY asked whether the discretionary powers available to the Commissioner of Police in Hong Kong in respect of conduct of public meetings were likewise available to Commissioners in other dependent territories. Was consideration being given to adopting measures to ensure that those powers were exercised in conformity with article 21 of the Covenant for example, through the appointment of a supervisory, preferably judicial, authority? Finally, he requested information on an incident which seemed to point to restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly in Hong Kong. Women's organizations and labour groups had apparently applied for a licence for a public procession to celebrate International Women's Day on 16 March 1988. While permission had been granted, a great many conditions had been attached, including the prohibition of music, speeches and chanting of slogans, and the police had reportedly intervened during the celebration.
65.
Mr. FEARN (United Kingdom) said his delegation had no information on that incident but would submit written comments at a later stage.
66. Mr. MARTIN (United Kingdom), speaking on registration of trade unions in Hong Kong, explained that the registrar could refuse to grant a request for registration for a number of reasons: if the request was not submitted in full accordance with the established procedures, if any of the trade union's purposes was unlawful, if its name was the same as that of another trade union, or if the registrar believed the trade union was actually one whose registration had previously been cancelled. A registrar's decision to refuse registration could be the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court. If registration had been obtained by fraud, or if a trade union was being used for unlawful purposes, the registration could be cancelled. An appeal against such cancellation likewise lay to the Supreme Court. He regretted that he was unable to give examples of requests for registration that had been rejected, but undertook to do so later in writing if the Committee so desired.
67.
With regard to the Public Order Ordinance, it should be borne in mind
The that urban Hong Kong was arguably the most crowded place in the world. Ordinance was designed to ensure that the right of freedom of expression through rallies, meetings and processions could be exercised safely and in conformity with public order. It was to that end that discretionary powers had been given to the Commissioner of Police. He would undertake to submit written information on how those discretionary powers had been exercised in the past and the factors taken into account for that purpose by the Commissioner of Police. To his knowledge, there were no plans to review the powers given to the Commissioner of Police under the Public Order Ordinance.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.