2019 Hong Kong extradition bill: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
The [[Hong Kong Bar Association]] released a statement expressed its reservation over the bill, saying that the restriction against any surrender arrangements with mainland China is not a "loophole", but in light of the fundamentally different criminal justice system operating in the Mainland and concerns over the Mainland's track record on the protection of fundamental rights. The association also raised concern over the accountability of the Chief Executive becoming the only body that determines whether a special arrangement is to be concluded with a requesting jurisdiction without negative vetting by the Legislative Council or expanding the role of the courts in vetting extradition requests.<ref>{{cite web|title=Observations of the Hong Kong Bar Association on the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019|date=2 April 2019|work= CitizenNews |url=https://www.hkcnews.com/article/19529/bar_association-fugitives_bill-19529/observations-of-the-hong-kong-bar-association-on-the-fugitive-offenders-and-mutual-legal-assistance-in-criminal-matters-legislation-amendment-bill-2019}}</ref> Three human rights groups, the [[Amnesty International]], [[Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor]], and [[Human Rights Watch]] opposed the bill, warning the extradition proposal could be used as a tool to intimidate critics of the Hong Kong or Chinese governments, peaceful activists, human rights defenders and putting those extradited at risk of torture or ill-treatment. |
The [[Hong Kong Bar Association]] released a statement expressed its reservation over the bill, saying that the restriction against any surrender arrangements with mainland China is not a "loophole", but in light of the fundamentally different criminal justice system operating in the Mainland and concerns over the Mainland's track record on the protection of fundamental rights. The association also raised concern over the accountability of the Chief Executive becoming the only body that determines whether a special arrangement is to be concluded with a requesting jurisdiction without negative vetting by the Legislative Council or expanding the role of the courts in vetting extradition requests.<ref>{{cite web|title=Observations of the Hong Kong Bar Association on the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019|date=2 April 2019|work= CitizenNews |url=https://www.hkcnews.com/article/19529/bar_association-fugitives_bill-19529/observations-of-the-hong-kong-bar-association-on-the-fugitive-offenders-and-mutual-legal-assistance-in-criminal-matters-legislation-amendment-bill-2019}}</ref> Three human rights groups, the [[Amnesty International]], [[Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor]], and [[Human Rights Watch]] opposed the bill, warning the extradition proposal could be used as a tool to intimidate critics of the Hong Kong or Chinese governments, peaceful activists, human rights defenders and putting those extradited at risk of torture or ill-treatment. |
||
On 1 April, Hong Kong billionaire tycoon [[Joseph Lau]], former chair of the [[Chinese Estates Holdings]] who was convicted of bribery and money laundering in a land deal in Macau in 2014, applied for a judicial review over the bill in court. Lau’s lawyers asked the court to make a declaration that the surrender of Lau to Macau would contravene the [[Hong Kong Bill of Rights]].<ref>{{cite news|title=Fugitive tycoon Joseph Lau files legal challenge against Hong Kong’s China extradition law plan|date= 1 April 2019|work=Hong Kong Free Press|url=https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/04/01/just-fugitive-tycoon-joseph-lau-files-legal-challenge-hong-kongs-china-extradition-law-plan/}}</ref> |
|||
On 27 April, bookseller [[Lam Wing-kee]] who claimed he was kidnapped by Chinese agents in 2015 [[Causeway Bay Books disappearances]] left Hong Kong for Taiwan, fearing proposed extradition law would mean he could be sent to mainland China.<ref>{{cite news|title= |
On 27 April, bookseller [[Lam Wing-kee]] who claimed he was kidnapped by Chinese agents in 2015 [[Causeway Bay Books disappearances]] left Hong Kong for Taiwan, fearing proposed extradition law would mean he could be sent to mainland China.<ref>{{cite news|title= |
||
Revision as of 02:05, 7 May 2019
| Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Legislative Council of Hong Kong | |
| |
| Considered by | Legislative Council of Hong Kong |
| Legislative history | |
| Introduced by | Secretary for Security John Lee |
| Introduced | 29 March 2019 |
| First reading | 3 April 2019 |
| Related legislation | |
| Fugitive Offenders Ordinance Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance | |
| Status: Pending | |
The Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 (Chinese: 2019年逃犯及刑事事宜相互法律協助法例 ( 修訂 ) 條例草案) is a proposed bill regarding extradition to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (Cap. 503) in relation to special surrender arrangements and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance (Cap. 525) so that arrangements for mutual legal assistance made between Hong Kong and any place outside Hong Kong, including any other part of the People's Republic of China, namely mainland China, Macau and Taiwan that are not covered in the existing laws.[2]
Background
A 19-year-old Hong Kong resident being arrested and tried in Taiwan for killing his 20-year-old girlfriend in early 2018 sparked the debate of Hong Kong's fugitive law. At present, the two ordinances, the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance, are not applicable to the requests for surrender of fugitive offenders and mutual legal assistance between Hong Kong and Mainland China, Macau and Taiwan and therefore the government does not have any legislation enabling it to request for extraditing the suspect.[3] In February 2019, the government proposed a changes to fugitive laws to plug the "legal loophole" by establishing a mechanism for case-by-case transfers of fugitives to any jurisdiction with which the city lacks a formal extradition treaty.[4]
Provisions
The key provisions of the bill are as follows:
In the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (FOO) (Cap. 503):[5]
- To differentiate case-based surrender arrangements (to be defined as "special surrender arrangements" in the proposal) from general long-term surrender arrangements;
- To stipulate that special surrender arrangements will be applicable to Hong Kong and any place outside Hong Kong, and they will only be considered if there are no applicable long-term surrender arrangements;
- To specify that special surrender arrangements will cover 37 of the 46 items of offences based on their existing description in Schedule 1 of the FOO, and the offences are punishable with imprisonment for more than three years and triable on indictment in Hong Kong. A total of nine items of offences will not be dealt with under the special surrender arrangements;
- To specify that the procedures in the FOO will apply in relation to special surrender arrangements (except that an alternative mechanism for activating the surrender procedures by a certificate issued by the Chief Executive is provided), which may be subject to further limitations on the circumstances in which the person may be surrendered as specified in the arrangements;
- To provide that a certificate issued by or under the authority of the Chief Executive is conclusive evidence of there being special surrender arrangements, such that the certificate will serve as a basis to activate the surrender procedures. Such activation does not mean that the fugitive will definitely be surrendered as the request must go through all statutory procedures, including the issuance of an authority to proceed by the Chief Executive, the committal hearing by the court and the eventual making of the surrender order by the Chief Executive. Other procedural safeguards, such as application for habeas corpus, application for discharge in case of delay, and judicial review of the Chief Executive's decision, as provided under the FOO will remain unchanged;
And in the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance (MLAO) (Cap. 525):[5]
- To lift the geographical restriction on the scope of application of the Ordinance; and
- To provide that case-based co-operation premised on the undertaking of reciprocity will be superseded by the long-term MLA arrangements once the latter have been made and become effective.
Concerns and opposition
Opposition expressed fears about the city opening itself up to the long arm of Mainland Chinese law and Hongkongers could be victimised under a different legal system and urged the government to establish an extradition arrangement with Taiwan only.[4] The business community also raised concerns over the mainland's court system. The American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) criticised that mainland's "criminal process is plagued by deep flaws, including lack of an independent judiciary, arbitrary detention, lack of fair public trial, lack of access to legal representation and poor prison conditions".[6] The Liberal Party and the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong, the two pro-business parties, suggested 15 economic crimes being exempted from the 46 offences covered by the extradition proposal.[7] The government backed down on proposal to after business chambers voice concern by exempting nine economic crimes. Only offences punishable by at least three years in prison would trigger the transfer of a fugitive, up from the previously stated one year.[8]
The Hong Kong Bar Association released a statement expressed its reservation over the bill, saying that the restriction against any surrender arrangements with mainland China is not a "loophole", but in light of the fundamentally different criminal justice system operating in the Mainland and concerns over the Mainland's track record on the protection of fundamental rights. The association also raised concern over the accountability of the Chief Executive becoming the only body that determines whether a special arrangement is to be concluded with a requesting jurisdiction without negative vetting by the Legislative Council or expanding the role of the courts in vetting extradition requests.[9] Three human rights groups, the Amnesty International, Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, and Human Rights Watch opposed the bill, warning the extradition proposal could be used as a tool to intimidate critics of the Hong Kong or Chinese governments, peaceful activists, human rights defenders and putting those extradited at risk of torture or ill-treatment.
On 1 April, Hong Kong billionaire tycoon Joseph Lau, former chair of the Chinese Estates Holdings who was convicted of bribery and money laundering in a land deal in Macau in 2014, applied for a judicial review over the bill in court. Lau’s lawyers asked the court to make a declaration that the surrender of Lau to Macau would contravene the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.[10]
On 27 April, bookseller Lam Wing-kee who claimed he was kidnapped by Chinese agents in 2015 Causeway Bay Books disappearances left Hong Kong for Taiwan, fearing proposed extradition law would mean he could be sent to mainland China.[11] On 28 April, estimated 130,000 protesters joined the march against proposed extradition law. The turnout was the largest since an estimated 510,000 joined the annual July 1 protest in 2014.[12]
See also
References
- ^ "Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019" (PDF). Legislative Council of Hong Kong.
- ^ Tso, Timothy. "Legal Service Division Report on Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019" (PDF). Legislative Council of Hong Kong.
- ^ "LCQ3: Proposed amendments to Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance". Government Information Services. 27 March 2019.
- ^ a b "Extradition bill not made to measure for mainland China and won't be abandoned, Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam says". South China Morning Post. 1 April 2019.
- ^ a b "ugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 to be submitted to LegCo". Government of Hong Kong. 26 March 2019.
- ^ "Extradition agreement with mainland China would damage Hong Kong's 'safe reputation' for business, AmCham says". South China Morning Post. 6 March 2019.
- ^ "Ex-Hong Kong chief secretary Henry Tang and Exco member Jeffrey Lam join business sector in criticising extradition deal with mainland China". South China Morning Post. 7 March 2019.
- ^ "Hong Kong-mainland China extradition plan to be watered down by exempting 9 economic crimes, under intense pressure from business community". South China Morning Post. 26 March 2019.
- ^ "Observations of the Hong Kong Bar Association on the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019". CitizenNews. 2 April 2019.
- ^ "Fugitive tycoon Joseph Lau files legal challenge against Hong Kong's China extradition law plan". Hong Kong Free Press. 1 April 2019.
- ^ "Bookseller Lam Wing-kee leaves Hong Kong for Taiwan, fearing proposed extradition law will mean he is sent to mainland China". South China Morning Post. 27 April 2019.
- ^ "Estimated 130,000 protesters join march against proposed extradition law that will allow transfer of fugitives from Hong Kong to mainland China". South China Morning Post. 28 April 2019.