1965 — Page 343

182

Page 343 of 382

664

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

organized crime, it is surely time to consider whether the danger of such a law is not greater than the protection it provides to the public.

This is a matter that must be the concern of every citizen, and for that reason I have no hesitation in bringing it to the notice of my col- leagues; I ask you to support the motion, in the name of justice.

I now move the motion standing in my name.

MR. BERNACCHI-I second this motion but reserve my speech until later. Just one word of personal correction on the first example quoted by Mrs. ELLIOTT. The solicitor was engaged by the Reform Club through Mrs. ELLIOTT who took a personal interest in this case.

MRS. ELLIOTT:-May I apologize? I did employ the solicitor, but I later handed him over to the Reform Club.

MR. CHEONG-LEEN: -Mr. Chairman, in supporting the motion, I think it would be appropriate to remind Government of the extensive powers which it possesses under the Emergency Regulations Ordinance (Cap. 241) and the Emergency (Deportation and Detention) Regulations 1962.

It is worthwhile emphasizing the Government should spare no effort to ensure that these extensive powers are used in a manner which will not put the Executive into the invidious position of pre-empting to itself the rights, duties and prerogatives of the Judiciary.

Specifically, I refer to occasions when Deportation and Detention Advisory Tribunals recommend that a detainee should be released.

As you may be aware, Mr. Chairman, each Tribunal consists of three persons, one a person highly competent in the law appointed by the Chief Justice, and the other two invited from a very selective panel appointed by His Excellency the Governor.

Bearing in mind the principle of separation of powers between the Judiciary and the Executive, it seems that the Executive is assuming total and complete power to itself when it chooses to cast aside the explicit recommendation of a fully qualified and responsible Tribunal that a detaince be released. This has happened in the past and it may well happen again, only too easily and all too conveniently.

It seems all the more unreasonable when one is reminded of the fact that the Tribunal's hearings are held in "in camera" and that the Police have very extensive powers of supervision over a detainee once he is released.

In the name of common justice and of fundamental human rights, would it not be more fitting if the extensive powers of supervision

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

665

possessed by the Police are applied where necessary to cases which have been recommended for release by a Deportation and Detention Tribunal?

Mr. Chairman, I would be grateful if you could convey these remarks to the Colonial Secretary and through him to His Excellency the Governor for their most serious consideration.

MR. HU:-Mr. Chairman, it now falls on me to support the Motion. First of all I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, and your official colleagues to support this motion. (Laughter). I urge you most sincerely, Mr. Chairman, because I have always been deeply impressed by the genuine- ness of Mrs. ELLIOTT. She brought this motion to Council with all her genuineness and all her sincerity. We cannot afford not to support this. The motion surely has great merits. Mr. Chairman, if you read the Hon. Attorney General's speech of the 13th January, his relevant passage

-I quote:

"There has been more suggestion that the very existence of these regulations makes it possible for officials to use them as a threat against minor law breakers. I feel that taking your Lordship's time on this matter to-day will be justified if what I have said helps to make it known to everyone in Hong Kong that such threats, if made, are entirely empty and that these special powers are reserved for those cases where, as I have said, the protection of society demands their use."

Mr. Chairman, the motion of Mrs. ELLIOTT could at least get rid of the unnecessary fears of ordinary citizens in our Colony, to realize that although there exists this Deportation Ordinance, that the Government would not generally use it against minor offences. At the least Mrs. ELLIOTT'S motion has this merit, to get rid of unnecessary fears of ordinary citizens of our Colony. So this motion indirectly helps the wishes expressed by the Attorney General when he made this speech at the opening of the Supreme Court Assizes on 13th January this year.

The next point I would make is that, in his speech, the Hon. Attorney General said: "That these special powers are reserved for those cases"-He did not elaborate what those cases were. If Govern- ment could seriously consider it we would like to know in what cases Government would like to use these special powers. We do not know— I do not know as a practising lawyer in this Colony for ten years, I do not know in what cases Government would apply these special powers. That in my respectful submission, Mr. Chairman, that is the root of the unnecessary fears of ordinary citizens.

Now the third point. I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the evils of this Deportation Ordinance lies in the secrecy. Mrs. ELLIOTT said in her speech that in the proceedings the solicitors were