Public Order Ordinance: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|territorial_extent = |
|territorial_extent = |
||
|enacted_by = [[Legislative Council of Hong Kong|Legislative Council]] |
|enacted_by = [[Legislative Council of Hong Kong|Legislative Council]] |
||
|date_enacted = |
|date_enacted = 15 November 1967 |
||
|date_passed = |
|date_passed = |
||
|date_passed2 = |
|date_passed2 = |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
|royal_assent = |
|royal_assent = |
||
|date_signed = |
|date_signed = |
||
|date_commenced = |
|date_commenced = |
||
|date_of_expiry = |
|date_of_expiry = |
||
|date_repealed = |
|date_repealed = |
||
|administered_by = |
|administered_by = [[Attorney General of Hong Kong|Attorney General]] [[Denys Tudor Emil Roberts]] |
||
|bill = |
|bill = |
||
|bill_citation = |
|bill_citation = |
||
|bill_date = |
|bill_date = 6 October 1967 |
||
|1st_reading = |
|1st_reading = 1 November 1967 |
||
|2nd_reading = |
|2nd_reading = 15 November 1967 |
||
|3rd_reading = |
|3rd_reading = 15 November 1967 |
||
|conf_committee_passed = |
|conf_committee_passed = |
||
|date_conf_committee = |
|date_conf_committee = |
||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
==Criticisms== |
==Criticisms== |
||
The Public Order Ordinance has been seen as the means to suppress Hong Kong people's civil liberties. |
The Public Order Ordinance has been seen as the means to suppress Hong Kong people's civil liberties. |
||
The [[Reform Club of Hong Kong]] objected the legislation of the bill when it was first introduced in 1967. It stated the bill made every peace loving resident of Hong Kong a potential criminal and made innocent persons who were charged with offences against it would 'be in grave danger of conviction, if they could not afford a lawyer and were undefended.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legco.gov.hk/1967/h671115.pdf|date=15 November 1967|accessdate=9 May 2013|title=Hansard|work=Legislative Council of Hong Kong}}</ref> |
|||
The system of letter of no objection has been criticised as a license system in disguise. If the police were to enforce the system strictly, there would large numbers of people would have to be prosecuted. However it would become a dead letter in the statue book and contrary to the rule of law principle if the law is not faithfully put into practice without discrimination.{{sfn|Wong|2004|p=79}} |
The system of letter of no objection has been criticised as a license system in disguise. If the police were to enforce the system strictly, there would large numbers of people would have to be prosecuted. However it would become a dead letter in the statue book and contrary to the rule of law principle if the law is not faithfully put into practice without discrimination.{{sfn|Wong|2004|p=79}} |
||
Revision as of 18:57, 8 May 2013
| Public Order Ordinance | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Legislative Council of Hong Kong | |
| Citation | Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245) |
| Enacted by | Legislative Council |
| Enacted | 15 November 1967 |
| Administered by | Attorney General Denys Tudor Emil Roberts |
| Legislative history | |
| Introduced | 6 October 1967 |
| First reading | 1 November 1967 |
| Second reading | 15 November 1967 |
| Third reading | 15 November 1967 |
| Status: In force | |
The Public Order Ordinance is the Cap. 245 in the Laws of Hong Kong relating the maintenance of public order, the control of organizations, meetings, processions, places, vessels and aircraft, unlawful assemblies and riots and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith. It has been one of the most controversial law in Hong Kong of restricting people's freedom of expression and assembly.
History
It was first passed by the British colonial government during the Hong Kong 1967 Leftist riots to give the power to Hong Kong police to arrest the pro-communist rioters. The bill was published on 6 October 1967 and was passed into law on 15 November 1967 by the Legislative Council. Before the enactment of the Public Order Ordinance 1967, the law dealing with public order was to be found in the Public Order Ordinance, the Peace Preservation Ordinance, the Summary Offences Ordinance and in the common law. The 1967 version of the law was a consolidation of various pieces of preexisting legislation.[1]
Under the revised Public Order Ordinance in 1980, it generated a licensing system for gatherings in public place.[2]
In 1991 the final years of the colonial rules, the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance Cap. 383 was enacted. A number of ordinances, including the Public Order Ordinance that may violate the Bill of Rights Ordinance had to be reviewed.[1]
In 1995, most provisions in the law was repealed by the Legislative Council as part of the government to bring Hong Kong law in line with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the licensing system was replaced by a simple notification procedure.[2]
In October 1996, Democratic Party's legislator James To introduced a private member's bill to amend section 6 of the Ordinance to remove the power of the Commissioner of Police to control the extent to which music or speech might be amplified. The Secretary for Security Peter Lai moved an amendment to make it more explicit that the Commission of Police would exercise such power only if "he reasonably considers it to be necessary to prevent an imminent threat to public safety or public order". The Secretary for Security's amendment was carried and the 1996 Amendment Ordinance came into effect on 20 December 1996.[1]
The People's Republic of China government was convinced that the reform in the late colonial days was maliciously motivated and aimed at reducing legitimate public order regulatory powers of the government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and considered the Bill of Rights Ordinance and also 1995 version of the Public Order Ordinance to contravene the Hong Kong Basic Law.[2] The Preliminary Working Committee for the HKSAR, an organ oversaw the preparatory works for the transfer of the sovereignty consisting members who were appointed by the PRC government, proposed to reinstate the Public Order Ordinance. Therefore on 23 February 1997, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress passed a resolution that under Article 160 of the Basic Law that major amendments to the Ordinance would be scrapped.[3]
Following up the NPC's decision, the Office of the Chief Executive Designate proposed amendments to the Public Order Ordinance, together with the Societies Ordinance and issued a hastily prepared consultation document "Civil Liberty and Social Order" to the public in April 1997. The proposed amendments created widespread criticisms that the future SAR government intended to restrict Hong Kong people's civil liberties. The colonial Hong Kong govenrment even distribute a commentary criticising the proposals in unusual manner.[4] The CE Office scaled down the amendments on 15 May in result. The Hong Kong Provisional Legislative Council enacted the new version of the Ordinance on 14 June 1997 with and came into force on 1 July 1997.[1] The restored and amended provisions which was seen a halfway between the licensing and notification systems.
Current version
Under the present system, public assemblies of more than fifty people and marches of more than thirty must obtain a letter of no objection from the police seven days in advance. Under the section 17A any failure to do is a criminal offense and may face an imprisonment term of up to five years.[2]
The 1997 version of the law gives government the power to prohibit a public meeting or procession on the grounds of "national security" and "the protection of the rights and freedoms of others," in addition to preexisting grounds of "public safety" and "public order."[5]
Cases
The first charge under the Public Order Ordinance was taken after the handover was in 2000, when seven student leaders were arrested for joining "illegal assemblies" and obstructing the police on a demonstration on 26 June 2000 that was without a prior notice given to the police. More than 500 academics and researchers signed a petition to support the students, about 1,000 people marched on the street without police's letter of no objection in open defiance of the Public Order Ordinance, and the Hong Kong Bar Association condemned the police for singling out students for arrest. Due to large pressure from the the society, the Secretary for Justice Elsie Leung decided not to prosecute the student leaders and other protestors.[6]
The first case that the HKSAR government decide to prosecute protesters for violation of the notification system was launched on 9 May 2002 against veteran protestor Leung Kwok-hung of the April Fifth Action and two other student activists was charged with organising an unauthorised public assembly or assisting in organising one. On 25 November 2002, the three were convcited for organising an unathourised public procession and for failing to notify the police under the Ordinance. Each of them was fined 500 Hong Kong dollars and was required to be bound over for three months. Magistrate Partick Li held that requirement for the notification system was reasonable fro maintaining ordre public of Hong Kong society.[7] The appeal was heard before the Court of Final Appeal.
On 8 July 2005, the Court of Final Appeal by a majority of 4 to 1 dismissed the appeal. The court upheld the requirement in the Ordinance that organisers of public processions involving more than 30 persons should notify the police in advance. The court also upheld the police's power to restrict or prohibit processions in the ground of "public order." The court also stressed that in excericising the discretionary power to regulate processions, the police must comply with the "proportionality" test, otherwise their decisions could be overturned by the court.[8]
The government was crticised for politically motivated prosecute a few high-profile protesters as Leung Kwok-hung was the veteran activist and a leader of a radical political group and the student activists were the prominent members of the Hong Kong Federation of Students which is a vocal critic of government policy.[9]
In the 2005 WTO conference, the Hong Kong Police referred to the Ordinance to arrest nearly a thousand protesting South Korean farmers in Hong Kong, but afterwards but no one could successfully be convicted.
The HKSAR government recorded the number of prosecution under Public Order Ordinance in 2011. There were total of 45 protesters charged under the Ordinance in 2011 compared with a total of just 39 since the handover. The 45 were among 444 protesters arrested were mostly in three massive protests. 54 prosecuted in total were police figures.[10]
Criticisms
The Public Order Ordinance has been seen as the means to suppress Hong Kong people's civil liberties.
The Reform Club of Hong Kong objected the legislation of the bill when it was first introduced in 1967. It stated the bill made every peace loving resident of Hong Kong a potential criminal and made innocent persons who were charged with offences against it would 'be in grave danger of conviction, if they could not afford a lawyer and were undefended.[11]
The system of letter of no objection has been criticised as a license system in disguise. If the police were to enforce the system strictly, there would large numbers of people would have to be prosecuted. However it would become a dead letter in the statue book and contrary to the rule of law principle if the law is not faithfully put into practice without discrimination.[5]
See also
References
- ^ a b c d "A Note on provisions relating to the regulation of public meetings and public processions in the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245)" (PDF). Legislative Council of Hong Kong. Retrieved 9 May 2013.
- ^ a b c d Wong 2004, p. 78.
- ^ Li 1997, p. 180.
- ^ Li 1997, pp. 180–181.
- ^ a b Wong 2004, p. 79.
- ^ Wong 2004, p. 80.
- ^ Wong 2004, pp. 80–81.
- ^ Kuah, Khun Eng; Guiheux, G. (2009). Social Movements in China and Hong Kong: the Expansion of Protest Space. Amsterdam University Press. p. 77.
- ^ Wong 2004, p. 81.
- ^ Cheung, Simpson (10 November 2012). "Record number prosecuted under tough Public Order Ordinance". Retrieved 9 May 2013.
- ^ "Hansard" (PDF). Legislative Council of Hong Kong. 15 November 1967. Retrieved 9 May 2013.
Bibliography
- Li, Pang-Kwong (1997). Political order and power transition in Hong Kong. Chinese University Press. ISBN ISBN9622017835.
{{cite book}}: Check|isbn=value: invalid character (help); Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Wong, Yiu-chung (2004). "One Country, Two Systems" in Crisis: Hong Kong's Transformation Since the Handover. Lexington Books. ISBN ISBN0739104926.
{{cite book}}: Check|isbn=value: invalid character (help); Invalid|ref=harv(help)