Urgent Business: Hong Kong, Freedom of Expression and 1997
4.7 SUMMARY OFFENCES
34
On 27 July 1990, a magistrate fined five leading political figures HK$150 each after finding them guilty of using loudhailers (and collecting donations) without permits, in breach of provisions of the Summary Offences Ordinance. The five had been charged during a small and peaceful demonstration at which they had been speaking of the inadequate protection of human rights under the Basic Law, Hong Kong's post-1997 constitution (see Section 4.11.2 below). The prosecution was widely regarded as being political in nature. The conviction was later overturned by the Chief Justice on appeal.
Section 4(29) of the Ordinance makes it an offence to use a loudhailer or megaphone (or any other kind of sound amplification equipment) in public without a permit from the police, the granting of which is at the absolute discretion of the Commissioner of Police.35 The intention of the broader provision, Section 4, is to regulate "nuisances committed in public places"; in fact its Sub-section 29 was enacted as far back as 1933 to prevent shopkeepers from broadcasting advertisements publicly on the street.3
36
In the supplement to its Third Periodic Report in March 1991, following considerable international attention to this case, the administration told the UN Human Rights Committee that the Summary Offences Ordinance was under review to see whether there were unnecessary duplications with noise control provisions in other laws. Little has happened since. The Secretary for Security told the Legislative Council on 15 July 1992 that the government was intending to review the Ordinance "as a whole", and that this would take some time.
However, the government has found time for its own agenda by pushing through a hasty amendment to the Ordinance which limits political fund-raising to certain confined public spaces, on the approval of the Secretary for Home Affairs. This adds to the government's powers over freedom of expression under the Ordinance. Criticizing this Summary Offences (Amendment) Bill 1991, United Democrats chairman Martin Lee Chu-ming noted that the US Supreme Court had recognized in many cases that political fund-raising was a protected form of free expression.
34
35
Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap 228), consolidated in present form in 1932; latest amendments in 1991.
It does not apply to the use of loudhailers in gatherings of over 30 people, which is covered by the Public Order Ordinance.
36 "Laws on loudhailers will remain", South China Morning Post, 19 July 1990.
45
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.