Mr. LALLAH stressed that the United Kingdom Government should use its best offices to abolish the application of corporal punishment in a number of its dependent territories, since that was against both the spirit and the letter of the Covenant.
7. He further pointed out that if Hong Kong legislation had had a provision on the lines of article 9 of the Covenant, there would have been direct access to the Supreme Court and there would have been no need to rely on habeas corpus, which was somewhat limited in scope.
8. Mr. FEARN (United Kingdom) said that Mr. Cooray's question regarding the "stop-and-search" provision would be answered in connection with a later item of the list of issues. With regard to the abolition of corporal punishment, his Government did not accept that resort to corporal punishment was necessarily incompatible with article 7 of the Covenant but it was in consultation with the authorities in the dependent territories where such punishment could still be applied and was encouraging them to review it.
9.
Mr. MARTIN (United Kingdom) confirmed that there was a proposal to institute the office of Commissioner for Administrative Complaints in Hong Kong. That official would be independent of the executive and it was proposed that the first incumbent should be a former judge of the high court. There was already a sophisticated structure for the investigation of complaints against the police force, and he outlined its main features briefly. Provisions regarding the offence of loitering had been reviewed by the Law Reform Commission, and the latter was also about to review all provisions in Hong Kong concerning "stop-and-search" and detention. pointed out that habeas corpus was not the only remedy available to detained persons in Hong Kong; they also had the right to apply for bail.
VII. Right to a fair trial (article 14)
He
10. Mr. FEARN (United Kingdom), explaining the procedures applicable to newly arrested persons, said that the position was broadly similar in all the dependent territories. A person was informed of the reason for his arrest at the time of arrest. If he was not released, or released on bail, he must be brought before a magistrate as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event within 24 hours of arrest (or 48 hours if there was an intervening Sunday or public holiday), on which occasion the charge would be read and explained to him. Where a person was released on bail without being charged, he would be required to report at an appointed time and date, when he would be informed of any charge against him. In such a case, the interval between release on bail and charging would depend on the time required to complete investigations. person arrested was usually allowed to inform his family and a lawyer immediately. In exceptional cases, where to do so might unreasonably hamper the investigation or the administration of justice, that right might be temporarily withheld, but in practice he would be able to contact his family and lawyer before being brought to court.
11.
A
Mr. ZIELINSKI, referring to the practice in some countries whereby persons were detained without trial, asked what was the relationship in Hong Kong between preventive detention and presentation in court and whether there had been many cases in Hong Kong where the accused had not been produced in court after preventive detention.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.