//An activist detained under Hong Kong’s national security law is planning to apply to the High Court to lift restrictions on the media’s reporting of her bail hearing on Wednesday.
In a message published on Tuesday, Gwyneth Ho argued that laws banning the media from reporting details of bail hearings failed to protect the interests of the accused. The press should be allowed to freely report what happened during those hearings, she said.
“After the defendants under the national security law were arrested and remanded in custody, the reporting restrictions on bail hearings have turned the process into a ‘black box’, and has created widespread fears in society,” she wrote.
“The public has no way of knowing the contents of the bail hearings under the national security law, especially the evidence used by the prosecutors and the courts’ assessment of the defendants.”
Ho is among 47 democracy figures charged with conspiracy to commit subversion, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. They are accused of plotting to subvert state power via an informal primary poll held last July. Only 13 of the 47 have been granted bail since early March.
After being detained for more than six months, Ho will make her bail application at the High Court on Wednesday morning.
She publicised her arguments a day in advance, saying the reporting restrictions set out under section 9P of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance were originally meant to ensure that defendants received a fair trial. The law limits media coverage of bail hearings to basic information such as the defendant’s name, the court’s decision and bail conditions.
Those regulations backfired because the lack of transparency had caused the public to doubt whether the national security law had been fairly implemented, Ho wrote, adding that Hong Kong society was worried about arbitrary arrests based on flimsy evidence.
“In reality, the reporting restrictions benefit the Department of Justice, as it no longer needs to publicly explain the basis of the charges and various political accusations,” she wrote.
“The restrictions have clearly contravened the principle of public justice, and if the courts still refuse to lift them, the public will inevitably suspect that the courts accept this unfair situation.”
The open administration of justice was a fundamental principle of Hong Kong’s common law system, and courts should be scrutinised by the public and the press, Ho said, quoting the city’s former chief justice Denys Roberts.
Hong Kong courts have mostly kept reporting restrictions in place for bail applications under the national security law, though some judges have issued written rulings explaining their decision to grant or refuse bail, which are typically published after a delay.
Earlier on Tuesday, the court again denied the bail application of former pro-democracy lawmaker Gary Fan, a co-defendant in the subversion case. Like most of the 47, Fan has been in custody for months with no trial date lined up as yet.
By Holmes Chan//
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「high court ordinance」的推薦目錄:
- 關於high court ordinance 在 Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於high court ordinance 在 Apple Daily - English Edition Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於high court ordinance 在 小小人物做小事 - 高松傑Jacky Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於high court ordinance 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於high court ordinance 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於high court ordinance 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答
high court ordinance 在 Apple Daily - English Edition Facebook 的精選貼文
Police officers who refused to display any identification numbers or ranks on their uniforms when carrying out duties in public events violated the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, the High Court ruled on Thursday.
Read more: https://bit.ly/36KbqQS
反修例運動期間,警方執勤時經常隱藏識別編號,市民接連對警方做法提出司法覆核,高等法院及後合併五宗案件審理,法官周家明頒下判詞,裁定執勤警員不展示編號違反《人權法》,亦批評監警會及投訴警察課未能有效處理針對警方的投訴。
____________
📱Download the app:
http://onelink.to/appledailyapp
📰 Latest news:
http://appledaily.com/engnews/
🐤 Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/appledaily_hk
💪🏻 Subscribe and show your support:
https://bit.ly/2ZYKpHP
#AppleDailyENG
high court ordinance 在 小小人物做小事 - 高松傑Jacky Facebook 的最佳解答
My recent article😎😎😎
https://m.orangenews.hk/details?recommendId=138868
Opinion|The Police is duty-bound to enforce the law resolutely
HK Current
2020.10.06 11:05
By Athena Kung
According to the statement made by the US Department of State on 3rd of October 2020 (local time), the arrests made by the Hong Kong Police on 1st of October 2020 were criticized by the Department as malicious ones. It has been alleged by the US Department of State that the Hong Kong Police merely enforces the law for the aim of achieving political goals, which amounts to serious violation of Hong Kong's rule of law and thus strongly attack individual's human rights as well as Hong Kong people's freedom of expression, procession and assembly. The Central Government was commented by the US Department of State as being given up the undertaking of "One country, Two systems" completely. Obviously, such allegations against both the Central Government and HKSAR made by US Government were very serious. To examine whether such comments were fair ones, we have to carefully consider if the allegations really have any valid legal basis or foundation.
According to both the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383, Laws of Hong Kong (hereinafter referred to as "the BORO“) and and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter referred to as the "ICCPR "), the freedoms of expression, procession and assembly were not absolute, and might be subject to restrictions as prescribed by law. Article 16 and 17 of the BORO relates to the freedom of opinion and expression and right of peaceful assembly which can be enjoyed by Hong Kong people:
"Article 16
Freedom of opinion and expression
(1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
(2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
(3) The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph (2) of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary—
(a) for respect of the rights or reputations of others; or
(b) for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
[cf. ICCPR Art. 19]
Article 17
Right of peaceful assembly
The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
[cf. ICCPR Art. 21]"
Thus, freedom of expression, procession and assembly in Hong Kong are not absolute. On the other hand, such rights are subject to restrictions as prescribed by law in the interests of public order, public safety and the interests of others, and so on.
Besides, Section 10(a) to (e) of the Police Force Ordinance, Cap 232, Laws of Hong Kong has clearly stated inter alia that:
"10. The duties of the police force shall be to take lawful measures for—
(a) preserving the public peace;
(b) preventing and detecting crimes and offences;
(c) preventing injury to life and property;
(d) apprehending all persons whom it is lawful to apprehend and for whose apprehension sufficient grounds exists;
(e) regulating processions and assemblies in public places or places of public resort;
…………"
What has really occurred in Hong Kong in various districts on 1st of October 2020?
(1) At around 1400 hours, a group of people gathered and yelled along Great George Street in Causeway Bay, which might have constituted offences related to unauthorised assemblies under the Public Order Ordinance, Cap 245, Laws of Hong Kong and offences related to prohibited group gatherings under the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation, Cap 599G, Laws of Hong Kong. Even though the Police had given multiple warnings at the scene and raised the blue flag requesting participants to leave the scene, at around 1500 hours, a large group of protesters still remained at the same place. Some of them even commenced to chant the slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times” over and over again. Thus, they were suspected of inciting or abetting others to commit acts of secession, which might constitute relevant offences under the HKSAR National Security Law. Afterwards, some protesters even spilled onto the road and breached public peace.
(2) At around 1500 hours, 2 men in the vicinity of Tin Ma Court in Wong Tai Sin hurled some petrol bombs and large objects at Lung Cheung Road. Having attended the scene, the police noticed that traces of the road being charred, as well as fences and traffic cones left on it. After investigation, the Police found that even though a large amount of vehicles were travelling along the road at the time of the incident, fortunately, no vehicle was hit by the petrol bombs and objects successfully. In any event, the rioters’ such heinous acts had severely endangered road users and breached public peace.
(3) The Police intercepted a man at Stewart Road in Wanchai at about 1600 hours and found him in possession of a foldable sharp knife which was at the same size of a business card. The 23-year-old man was subsequently arrested on suspicion of possession of an offensive weapon, as there stood a strong likelihood that he might intend to use the said item to injure members of the public or police officers.
(4) At around 1500 hours, the Police set up a roadblock along a section of the Tuen Mun Road near Summit Terrace in Tsuen Wan to intercept suspicious vehicles, and found extendable sticks, a helmet, face masks and a large amount of promotional leaflets inside a private car with an expired vehicle licence. Some of the leaflets contained slogans suspected of calling for “Hong Kong independence” written on them. The 35-year-old male driver of the car was arrested on suspicion of various offences including “Possession of Instrument Fit for Unlawful Purpose”, “Driving an Unlicenced Vehicle” and “Driving Without Third Party Insurance”.
(5) At around 1630 hours, the Police stopped and searched a man in the vicinity of Tonnochy Road and Lockhart Road in Causeway Bay, and found items including a cutter, a spanner, plastic straps and a pair of gloves in his backpack. The 20-year-old man was subsequently arrested on suspicion of possession of offensive weapons.
(6) After nightfall, protesters continued to gather in different districts. To ensure public safety, the Police have enforced the law resolutely according to the situations arising in different districts. At 2200 hours, not less than 86 persons have been arrested in multiple districts. Among them, 74 persons including four District Councillors were arrested on suspicion of taking part in unauthorised assemblies in Causeway Bay, while the rest were arrested on suspicion of committing offences including possession of offensive weapon, failing to produce proof of identity, possession of forged identity card, disorderly conduct in a public place and driving an unlicenced vehicle. Besides, 20 persons were given fixed penalty notices for suspectedly breaching the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation.
Actually, the Police is duty-bound to enforce the law resolutely. On the facts, all arrests taken place on 1st of October 2020 were absolutely lawful and necessary to maintain law and order in the society and protect the life and property of all Hong Kong residents. Undoubtedly, the US officials have all along been adopting "double standards" in expressing utterly irresponsible remarks on law enforcement actions in the HKSAR. Everyone is equal before the law. So long as there is evidence supporting that someone has violated the law, no matter what his or her status or background is, he or she must face the legal consequence. Being a law enforcement agency, the Police must take action whenever they come across any unlawful acts in strict accordance with the laws in force. All cases must be handled in a fair, just and impartial manner by the Police in accordance with the law, which is the only and real reason as to why the Police arrested the 86 odd people on 1st of October 2020. To conclude, all criticizms made by the US towards the Hong Kong Police, HKSAR Government and Central Government were all unfair without any legal or concrete support at all.
It appears that the US government has always been refusing to accept the truth that the HKSAR is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "the PRC") and a local administrative region which enjoys a high degree of autonomy, as contrary to absolute autonomy, and comes directly under the Central People's Government. Hong Kong affairs are internal matters of the PRC. The system in Hong Kong is not "Two countries, Two systems". Hong Kong will never be an independent country with a pro-American government formed by the Opposition Camp in Hong Kong. Any foreign governments like the US must at once stop scaremongering and interfering in any form in Hong Kong's affairs. The "Colour Revolution" promoted by the US in Hong Kong should be terminated in no time.
The author is Barrister-at-law.
The views don't necessarily reflect those of Orange News.
責編: CK Li
high court ordinance 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的精選貼文
high court ordinance 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最讚貼文
high court ordinance 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答
high court ordinance 在 High Court Ordinance - Hklii.org 的相關結果
沒有這個頁面的資訊。 ... <看更多>
high court ordinance 在 The annotated ordinances of Hong Kong. High Court ... - HKALL 的相關結果
The annotated ordinances of Hong Kong. High Court Ordinance (Cap 4) = 高等法院條例(第4章) Available at Lee Quo Wei Law Library UL Law (KNR13 . ... <看更多>
high court ordinance 在 Cap. 4 High Court Ordinance - Hong Kong e-Legislation 的相關結果
Subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, the High Court shall be a court of unlimited civil and criminal jurisdiction. ... <看更多>