FCO 40/231 Emergency regulations and orders

{

N.E

TOWKI QUAD

DO NOT RETAIN FILES AND PAPERS UNNECESSARILY RETURN THEM TO REGISTRY FOR B.U. OR P.A.

STAMP

YEAR

(N.B. The grading of this jacket must be the same as that of the highest graded document contained in it. The appropriate upgrading slip must be affixed when ever necessary.)

CONFIDENTIAL

PORCIQ: { AMD rs!MMONWEALTH

DEPT.

OFFICE

Contents checked

for transfer to

D.R.O.

(Sgd.).

HOM KONG

HONG

FILE NO. HK K 14/20

Date

(Part

TITLE: HONG KONG.. LEGAL AFFAIRS

EMERGENCY REGULATIONS AND ORDERS

REFER TO

NAME

TO SEE:

DATE

20%

REFER TO

NAME

(and dept. when necessary)

271

SEE:

DATE

24-11·70

REFER TO

NAME

DATE

SEE:

(and dept, when necessary)

PART.

FILE N

(and dept. when necessary)

Regista

m Mursh a 24.

Rest

n Samiara

བ/

20/

29/1

Regishig M. Damian DS.

Carter

m. Marsh

27/2

28/

Ragy M. Saminara 624

K27

Mr. Saminara BU. 377

K 271

Me bark

31/

28 31/7

Regy My Seminara Bu

　　　　　271 Ho marsh

M. Jammmare

SEC

N.B.

UPC

(5976) D.

7/8

12/2 29 1619.

Fcoto/ 231

PREDAM KANNATTAANZANIAA

CHANNELHEIDEALIYEEHHIK

e 1926

Registry Address

R. K27/

joanas rajons Kag, Charles Strunc.

(N.B. The grading of this jacket must be the same as that of the highest graded document contained in it. The appropriate upgrading slip must be affixed when ever necessary.)

CONFIDENTIAL

YEAR STAMP

USEFUL INFORMATION RELATED TO CONTENTS OF THIS FILE

-----

LAST FILE: HWB 14/41

NEXT FILE: HKK 14/20 (1470)

OTHER RELATED FILES: HWB 14/20 Emergency begulating. We tulin & Deputa

HKK14/22 offends agains its Verson Legislation.

-------

En Clair

HONG KONG TO FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

Telno BIS 1

UNCLASSIFIED

15 January, 1969

TOP COPY

AKUMHV

1 € JAN 1969

ре

An order

Three emergency regulations will be discontinued. will ?arp undec] gazetted Friday discontinuing numbers twenty-seven, forty-one and one hundred twenty-nine of Emergency (Principal) Regulationo.

Emergency Regulation twenty-seven deals with the dissemination of false reports; Emergency Regulution forty-one with powerto nearch fer and scize veacons without warrant and Emergency Regulation one hundred

twenty-nine provides for offence of sabotage.

Effect of discontinuing regulations is that they cannot be used without new decision by Governor in Council.

　　In meantime they will be retained in law in case they should be needed.

Decision follows latest review of emergency legislation.

onid

　　In answer questions we said "Government not (repeat not) taken any decision incorporate Regulation thirty-one or any similar. provision in permonent law", Ends, Informu,

Sir D. Trench

DEPARTMENTAL DISTRIBUTION

Information Policy Dept News Dept

Information Administration Dept

Information Research Dept

Hong Kong Dept

Far Eastern Dept

bbbbb

Rist. Pe. recive to the Gaminara

ou return

врем

zefs

1 7 JAN 1969

HKK 14/20

176

03/1/69

19.469.

Mr. Carter

Reference

HKK 14/20

with (2

(2) and enclosures are a very useful summary of the present position as regards emergency legislation in Hong Kong. Part II in particular tell us the extent to which emergency regulations are to be incorporated into permanent legislation. The file concerning the Criminal Procedure (Amendment)(No. 2) Ordinance, 1968 is, I believe, with you.

You may recall that we recently conveyed notice of non-disallowance of that Ordinance subject to certain amendments which we asked the Governor to introduce.

The

2. The Governor sent us, at the beginning of January, a draft Bill to amend the Public Order Ordinance which was enacted in November, 1967. purpose of this Bill is to meet, as far as possible, the criticisms levelled at the Ordinance by "Justice" The papers have been with the Law Officers for some time but I had to recall them recently in connection with a Parliamentary Question which I submitted to you a day or two ago. Pending clearance of the proposed reply to that Question, I am hanging on to the papers.

The draft Bill does in fact meet

quite a lot of "Justice's" criticisms but the Governor has certain reservations about certain of them which we shall need to look at carefully when we have received the views of the Law Officers.

3. Meanwhile, these papers would be a very useful ready reference in the event that we are asked questions on the subject of emergency legislation.

30 January, 1969

(A. W. Gaminara) Hong Kong Department

Two sets of

F.R.

have seen discontinued

since (2)

won

sent

1. e

Prevention of

Inflammatay Speeches and

inflammatory Posters. When the replacement-

Legulation mentioned in the

how been enacted

Second Schedule

ali The Emergency Lowert

Fähen in 1967 will have carsappeared excanged"

for Regs. 29-31 of the Primay al Regis (and

5 sumpect that there

before

may well disappear

the replacement begulation is ready).

Love

14/2

2009027

C.1. 20A

CONFIDENTIAL

SAVING EX DESPATCH

From the Governor, Hong KongForeign & Commonwealth Affairs

To the Secretary of State for the Cabonde K

Repeated to:~~

Repeated to:- Date

21st January, 1969

19 JAN 1969

No.

My Reference....

CR 6/3231/59IV

Your Reference?

Emergency Legislation

The need to continue emergency legislation in force in Hong Kong is under regular review here, and, as discussed by me with Sir Arthur Galsworthy in London, I enclose for your information a tabulated statement showing the present position regarding the various items introduced in 1967 specifically to meet the Communist disturbances. This statement is in two parts; Part I lists Emergency (Principal) Regulations and other Emergency Regulations which it is not proposed to incorporate in permanent legislation, while Part II lists emergency legislation which has been or will be incorporated (in some cases in less stringent form) in permanent legislation.

2. The only Emergency Regulations which it is proposed for the time being to keep in force, and which there is no intention to replace by permanent legislation, are the Detention Regulations, E(P)R 29 to 31. The reason for keeping them in force is that it is not for the present desirable to release the remaining five detainees, and it would be open to question to de-activate these regulations while at the same time keeping these men in detention. I am considering whether there is any possibility, when the time comes to discontinue these regulations, of amending them so as to go some way towards meeting the objection that they do not provide adequate safeguards for the individual, while at the same time

Discontinuance ensuring that they can be effectively applied in need. would have to be accompanied by a clear assurance to the public that these powers can be revived again at short notice should the need arise.

Encl.

IML/mjc

RECEIVED IN ARCHIVES No.31

29 JAN 1963

HKK14/20

رها

CONFIDENTIAL

HONG KONG ENERGAMOT I CISLATION INTRODUCED IN 17

Emergency Regulations enacted or brought into

L(F)R 27

force in 1967

Dissemination of false reports.

E(F)R 29 (only para. 1) Arrest and power to

detain suspected persons.

E(P)R 30

Arrest of persons suspected of being liable to detention.

E(P)R 31 Power to order detention

PART I

Repealed or

spent

Discontinued

17th January,1969

E(P)R 41

Power to search for and seize weapons

17th January, 1969

etc.

E(F)R 92 - Orders for the opening or closing of

premises.

14th May, 1968

E(P)R 119A

　　　　　　　Persons frequenting or found in premises containing arms, offensive weapons etc. to be guilty of offence.

E(P)R 119B

　　　　　　Persons found in premises to which authorized officer denied access to be guilty of offence.

E(F)R 129

Sabotage.

E(P)R 136A - Modification of District Court

Ordinance increasing Court's power of sentence for certain offences.

L.N.80/67 Emergency (Prevention of Inflam-

matory Speeches) Regulations 1967.

14th May, 1968

.nuary,1969

14thy,168

To be relied

on re-enactment

as (ingetive) (FR

In force

- 2 -

Emergency Regulations enacted or brought into force in 1967.

L.11.79/67 Emergency (Courts) Regulations 1967.

Replaced or to be replaced by permanent legislation

end

Repoaled or to be repcaled or to be discontinued.

L.N.98/67 Emergency (Prevention of Intimidation)

Regulations 1967.

L.N.99/67 Emergency (Closed Areas) Regulations 1967.

L.N.109/67 - Emergency (Public Health and Urban Services

Ordinance) (Amondment) Regulations 1967 (disposal of human remains).

L.N.143/67 - Emergency (Firework) Regulations 1967.

Incorporated into Criminal Procedure Ordinance by Criminal Procedure (Amendmont)(No. 2) Ordinance 1968 4th Oct.1968.

Replaced by similar provi- sions contained in Public Order Ordinance 17th Nov. 1967.

Has been incorporated into the Public Order Ordinance.

To be incorporated into Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance by amending Bill coming before Executive Council during January.

The prohibition on possession continued by an amendment to the Dangerous Goods (General) Regulations Cap. 295, sub.leg. in force 1st Jan. 1969.

Repealed.

Repoaled.

To be repealed. If neces- piry, replacement orders for L.No. 100, 101, 107 can be made under the Public Order Ordinance.

To be ropealed.

Repealed.

As at 10th January 1969.

PART II.

Emergency Regulations enacted or brought into force in 1967.

E(P)R 88

www

E(P)R 96

Criminal proceedings may be held in camera and non- disclosure of identity of witnesses in certain

casos.

Identification (members of tho public to identify themselves to police officers and military personnel).

E(P)R 107 Powers to disperse assemblies.

E(P)R 113

Obstruction.

E(P)R 119C

Possession of corrosive substance.

E(P)R 119D E(P)R 119E

Possession of simulated bomb.

Defence in respect of charges under E(P)Rs 119A and 119D.

Replaced or to be replaced by permanent legislation

and

Incorporated into Criminal Procedure Ordinance by Criminal Procedure (Amendment)(No. 2) Ordinance 1968 4th Oct.1968.

To be incorporated into permanent legislation. Drafting instructions being prepared.

Replaced by similar powers contained in the Fublic Order Ordinance 17th Nov. 1967.

To be incorporated into the Public Order Ordinance by the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1969. Sent to S. of S. 3rd Jan. 1969.

A similar, less stringent provi-

to be

Persón

Integrated into the Ordinance by an amending Bill coming before Executive Council during January.

A public mischief offence to be

created in permanent legisla-

Repealed or to be repealed

or to be discontinued.

Repealed.

To be repealed.

AN 3170

Repealed.

To be repealed.

To be discontinued.

Before Leglo 14/2/06 Opences itganist the Peren (Amolt).

Bol, 1969.

To be repealed.

Before beglo

Legloo. Offers

tion. Drafting instructions & Beans (ii) ce, 19649.

E(P)R 127

Meetings.

being prepared.

Replaced by similar provisions

contained in the Public Order Ordinance 17th Nov. 1967.

Repealed.

mergency Regulations enacted or brought into

force in 1967.

L.N.83/67

　　　　　　Emergency (Provention of Influmma- tory Posters) Regulations 1967.

L.N. 119/67 - Emergency (Committee of Review)

Rules 1967 and L.N.168/67 - Emergency (Committee of Review) (Amendment) Rules 1967.

L.N.138/67 Emergency (Legal Aid in Crimiral

Cases) (District Court) Regulations 1967.

L.N.165/67

Emergency (Amendment of Magistrates Ordinance) Regulations 1967.

L.N.180/67- Emergency (General Holiday)

Regulations 1967.

As at 10th January 1969.

-2-

Repcaled or spent

Discontinued

To be re-enacted as

E(P)R.

In force

repealed

1st October 1960

spent

کو

On discontinuance of (P)Rs 29-31.

HONGKONG

FAR CASTERN ECONOMIC REVIEW January 9, 1969.

HONGKONG AFFAIRS

Outsider's Chance

074 paper, the new Colonial Secretary oppeds to have a useful blend of political and administrative experience to rectim. inct him. As a colonial official who served first in India and then took part me karating; ink pendent stares out of Bri- abhi ordonnes in Arica, Shi Hugħ Normans Walker shoub↑ Lave a clear idea of how In coming to terms with popular opinion and have more keenly developed political insaineta than most civil servants in the Hongkong Government. While the Seychelles has never been remarkable for the efficiency of its administration, the experience of having grappled with a weak Luneaucratic machine and attempted to instil it with a new sense of purpose is no bad thing for a Colonial Secretary in Hongkong.

It is also an advantage that Sir Hugh has already been a colonial governor. A

man who has served at the top of an administration ought to be unafraid of responsibility and eager to make a positive impact on the bureaucracy of Hongkong instead of being content, as so many Colonial Secretaries have len in the past, to get buried in the files and kt minutes and memoranda take command of his working day. Although his career to date hardly fits him to come to a quick under- standing of the Colmy and its peculiar problems, it is perhaps more important for Hongkong to have as Colonial Secre- tary a man capable of producing a flow of new ideas and policy proposals rather than a home-grown oficial whose only real qualification is unexceptionable ser- vice.

The appointment of Sir Hugh ought to bring another bonus. He is a man who still has several years of service ahead of him. If he does no less than keep his copy-book clean, he can expect to follow Sir Michael Gass to the Western Pacific

as High Commissioner. But the door is open to him to do better than this. If he can really make his mark on the Hong- kong administration, he should be able to look forward to becoming Governor of the Colony, perhaps by the unusual step of direct promotion from Colonial Secre- cary. At the same time, his appointment represents a challenge to some of the more promising members of the Hongkong Civil Service. Two or three believed that they had a fair chance of getting the post, not this year possibly, but in 1970 if London nominated the expected out sider to take over as Colonial Secretary on a caretaker basis. Their immediate hopes have been dashed, and London seems to have indicated that the ability to move files with dispatch and to avoid giving offence are not sufficient qualifica. tions for the rank of Colonial Secretary; the ambitious must display initiative, leadership and some political fair.

EMERGENCY REGULATIONS: It is accepted in most quarters in Hongkong that the 1967 emergency is well and truly over, However, the Emergency Regulations, introduced at the height of the disturbances, are still in force. John Rear, a lecturer in law at Hongkong University and the storm centre of the recent controversy over the Emergency Regulations, presents the case for both the Crown and its critics.

The Rule of Law

Dy Jolm Rear

71E Government has a splendid opportunity to make an

　　authoritative reply to those who criticise Energency Regulation 31 and the administration's right to make arrests and hold individuals without trial. This week, at the Open- ing of the Assizes, the Attorney General will have a forumi to state the official case for retaining these sweeping powers

ник

6. Chat & 1KK 1/12

and to defend the Government's record as he did last year. During the war, the Governor was given a power to detain without trial, first under GN 703 of 1939 and then under the Defence Regulations, 1940, 18(1), which was in the same terms as the United Kingdom Defence. Regulation 153. In 1919, all the Emergency and Defence Regulations

: RECEIVED IN

ARCHIVES No.31

30 JAN 1969

HKX14/20

All

ALANGAIC

ALVIEW

Danny 9, 1969

ver, reviewed and consolidated in the Emergency (Principal)" Regul tung. These conferred the power of detention without trial by Regulation 31(1): "The Colonial Secretary many by order under his hand direct that any person named in such knader shall be tained for any period not exceeding ont

　　　in such place of detration as may be specified by the Canal Secretary in the order,"

　　　A detaice has no right to a trial but he is bound to be informed of his right to lage objections against his de-. Lador to a Committee of Review, the functions of which

"as conwder and make recommendations to the Colonial Secretary" with respect to such ninjections (Regulation 31(3)). The Chairman and inculer of the Committee are appointed by the Governor. The Chairman and one other member con-" stunte a quorum (Regulation 31(2)). A dktaince may ap per la fine the Committee in person or, if he obtains the home of the Committee on his first appearance before it, he may be represented by a lawyer. The detainee must be given "such inlocution relating to the detention of the person as ilas Columnal Secretary may authorise" {Emergency (Com- mittee of Revicz) Rules, 3(2) ).

It com la disputed that these provision, offert the comprad Go "Bukod Law", "This term covet, nat enly das ale came that the Ixecutive is bound by the law but abo alda hal body of detailed ruks by which the inlaidud is protected ha criors and "laise in the exercise of govern- oncital powers. In considering the application of the Rule of Love to this part of the world, a Conference of 105 jurias Cum 16 comitrios of the Southeast Asian and Pacific Regin an Pangkal in Flugars 1955 and at which Sa Mehed n. klart Justice, was Houglong's pour qual es presenta- Ting that "siv during public comergency they ate mu go the life of the nation" preventive detention is contrary to the Rule of Law. Second, the declaration of any such emergency should forthwith be reported to the Legislas ture for ratification and it should be for a specified lunited. tius (not excruling six months), any continuation beyond. which should be effected "by the Legislature only after care- Fat ad deliberate consideration".

11.

Third, the Excemtive should during such emergency take "only such measures as are reasonably justifiable for the pur

　　　of dealing with the situation which exists", Fourth, legislation should provide the individual with safeguards agedoet continuing arbitrary confinement by requiring a protapt and adaniais rative hearing and decision, with a right to judicial review, upon the need and justification for deten- con and with a right to representation by counsel at all stages. Fifth, das period of detention should, except in time of war, be affective only for a limited and specified time not excred- ong six month. Sixth, the detainee should forthwith be supplied with particulars of the grounds of his detention. These recolamendations are an instructive measure of what Asian jurists feel is tolerable in times of national emergency.

What is the justification for Regulation 31 I is naly progea pe state the case for the right to arrest mal detarti in naviduals without trial fully and Emily. The arguments in support of chi, ae of Regulation 31 may perhaps le ratione alised, in a way their proponents have hardly attempted, as follows. It is the duty of any government to protest its termory and to protect its people from the violent attacks of a minoray. During 1967, the communist minority made " conconul ́assault on the way of life of the non-communist majority in which the use of violence resulted in the loss

of 51 lives (including 10 police, one soldier and one fireman). In such circumstances, any government is faced with a choice, in the words of one correspondent to the press, "to stand on principle and possibly to lose freedom, or to waive the ap plication of the principle temporarily" in order to survive,

Those who defend the Regulation go on to argue that the weapon it had to hand was a regulation which had been lying, uncriticised, on the statute book for nearly a decade. While the emergency is on is no time to object to it. Regulation 31 Rs necessary because the full trial process is inappropriate for dealing with subversive elements. A trial is for determining whether or not a person has committed a specific atfence, whereas here what is required is a power to put out of harm's way people whom the Government rea- sonably suspects, on the information it has, are about to act prejudicially to the Colony's security. This is a matter for the executive, not for judges. Moreover, the trial process is slow, and it involves publicity which would endanger Gavera- ment's sources of information. Finally, the rules of evidence are inappropriate where action is being taken on what is merely justifiable suspicion.

It is also stated in defence of the Regulation that the procedure under the Emergency (Deportation and Detention) Regulations is also inappropriate in circumstances like those of 1967 for it applies only to aliens, and it was net "thought rigla xo apply duerent laws and procedures to those implicated in [19675] events because of their nationality". In respect of aliens, the Giovernment is in a uniquely difficult position in that Chana will not accept the return of its deported nationals, taking the view, apparently, that Hongkong being Chinese soil deportation is inappropriate and unacceptable,

Criticism of Regulation 31 has also been countered by claims that there already is a safeguard in that the detainees have a chance to appeal to an independent Committee of Review", though the ames of the members of this Com- mitter cannot be revided "because to do so would expose them to unnecessary personal risks". One member, however, is a lawyer. Beine detention orders are made, all cases are "carefully examined by law officers" initially, and subsequently are regularly reviewed with a view to release as soon as scou- rity conditions warrant. Detention orders are for one year, and many detainees have been released before the year was up, One has been redesined for good cause for one year and

Tong Ping-ta (third from right) was originally arrested under the Deportation of Aliens Ordinance and then held under Emergency" Regulation 31 which offered him considerably less opportunity to stolo a case against his detention,

given a further chance to appeal to the Committee of Review". Moreover, according to the Governor, "the law requires that the detainers be released when they are no longer considered a

security threl".

The unhorities maintain that the power has been used "with the greatest sandcration, bearing in unind the scale and a verity of the events of 1967. At die height of the trouble the maximum of detainees ever in custody was 51, which sumpates very favourably with the similar measures other governments have found necessary when subquted to similar but certainly no more dangerous or violent situations". The Government is the only body in a position to judge when the camergency is over and release of the detainees possible. Until then the regulation cannot be repealed. The situation is regularly reviewed; "to early a revocation

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　may under. mine much of the stability which the reasonable use of them fas helped to restore."-Finally, all the people who have been detoned were "openly and deeply involved in the violent ac nyines". The law-abiding have ∎ it

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　to fear the Pony Kaş olanons.

Teat socans to be a fair summary of the case for the

· | Floar do the Government's cruth. meet the ade namiru dian's angunuas in defence of Regulation 317 The Dako anikaent's dilepanu is addouitted. The authooties were woke a dear duty to try to deal with subversive clements Felhund the overt viclence. However, it is the forra of the powers taken which is crucial. It is not an end of the argu- bache to admit that there may be times wlan the full trial proksilny may have na be bypassed. The concept of the Bakal Lawas stoked if the executive raki, no more power nod af with a station than is necessary and if as many safeguards against error and abuse are built in as is consistent with effective action. In a time of war, such as Hongkong fred in December 1941, those safeguards will be minimal. The fact is, however, that Defence Regulation 15(1) intro- dured in 1910 was less sweeping in its terms than the present Funergency Regulation 31. In practice, these safeguards were reduced as a result of a case in the House of Lords, (Livuosidge v Auderson). Although the communist disturbances were serious, it is unwarranted to say that conditions in 1967 wire on i par with 1941. As the Hongkong Government's 1987 Annual Report states: "The ordinary life of the Colony la. not been disrupted. The rioting that has taken place. has been limited in area and in scope and has been con. Lined."

Critics of the Government go on to argue that although Regolatun 31 has been on the statute book since 1949, it was not brought into force until July 27, 1967, a fortnight after the Acting Colonial Secretary's "grop the initiative" qool. This explain (though does not justify) the hack of attcution previously paid to it.

The Government's plea that the usual trial in open court i. inappropriate du au Omergency mines the point. A aland nikenal sating out camicia where Bocessary, as the amara em do who trying cases under the Oriol Secrets which also involve questions of national sturny with mouthed rules of procedure and evidence would be fully consistent with the Government's need for effective, rapid administrative action. There, seem, no reason to sup- pose that the judiciary is so unmindful of the exigencies of an emergency situation that they cannot be trusted to evaluate, un evidence presented to them by the Crown and tested by the detaizce, whether or not the detention of a particular person is desirable, the burden of proof being placed on the

PAR CÂNTEAN Economic REVIEW January 9, 1969

Hongkong commurists take part in a recent rally in Conton; China réfutes to cecept extremists deported from the Colony and thus has forced the Government to look for other ways to deal with those who threaten the community's security.

detsince. The importance of using a judge is that he is be customed to edasting evidence and he has a measure of detachment and independence. The ability to weigh evidence is particularly important where subversion is alleged and much of the evidence is likely to be hearsay and suspicion only. A case before the British courts (Knight) involving Britain's wartime regulations revealed the tenuousness of the evidence which has suffices to secure the detention of persons in the past: in that case the "evidence" was mere malicious tiule. tattle. The trial process need not be slow and, anyway, de- tention pending trial could be permitted.

Again, instead of bringing in Regulation 31 the Govern- ment could have amended the Emergency (Deportation and Detention) Regulations to cover British subjects. Although the safeguards under these Regulations are unnecessarily in- ,adequate, they are at least better than the gingle one under Regulation 31. The Chairmen of the Deportation and De- tention Advisory Tribunals are legally qualified (though not judges); legal representation is as of right; the final decision is for the Governor-in-Council, not one man alene; and there is a form of wish in which the detainee can test the evidence. against him, all evidence being admissible.

The Committee of Review provided for under Regula- tion 31 is a totally nadequate safeguard. It is disgraceful that, unlike under the wanine Defence Regulations, the detainee is not bound to be told sufficient of the case against him to enable him to meet it, but only so much as the Culonial Secretary may authorise. Unlike the wartine Advisory Tribun), the chalman does not have to be legally qualified. A quorum of two could mean that the detaince is "appealing" to the Colonial Secretary and Commissioner of Police, for all we know. (The reason given for not revealing the names of the members seems quite suecious.) Legal representation is not as of right. The Colonial Secretary may ignore the Committee's recommendations, so it is false to talk of a right of appeal. There scents no good reason why the tribunal's decision should not be binding, only it it is binding cap one speak of the right of appeal which a detainee undoubtedly should have.

The Government's claims about careful examination by law officers are quite valueless. I frankly doubt whether

What about, the Garnet's a bitų for meaty ?

FAN TALPAR IZANOMIC DALVIEW

jmmary 9, 1909

if the Special Branch said "X ought to be detained", the low officers would not feel themselves in a position to do any- thing but go along with the request. Government is assum ing the role of prosecutur, jury and judge. The number.

　　　　acquittals in the ordinary courts shows how many lignes the reasonable suspicions on which the police and law officers have together acted to put suspects on irial have been proved false,

The

et...

Stanlarly, official statements on the limitation of the period of detention are more theoretical than real. Therer is nothing to provent a further detention order being made, when the first expires, the safeguards on the second being axmadipate as on the first. It is impossible to accept State Loent that wily one has been held for more

it Can be established that at least five. de Comel without trial for period of well over The alberi chim aban the legal require- And bel to uchars detainees when they we no longer a thiçat is simply not true. In the same way that the Colonial Secretary is not required to have a reatia for de- tuning a person in the first place, so he is not required to bove any mason or justification for continuing the detention,

11!

As to the Government's claim that it has used its powers seth, pola dion, at as ditficult to judge. It is wrong that My dtion to state the names and addressin of sal thur det te ad and to announce their subaquent release. It means it is impossible to chec, on the way the power is beng med. To any even, we may recall the words of K. Gripal, MP, in the Commons debate on Regulation 183 in TOWA "It is not sufficient for the Minister to say, amidst evonalrable approval for him personally, I am not the sort of person who would use these powers badly.' We cannor have any such confidence A Minister may be succeeded by wachandy who holdh other views Jt wens a vicious penuple to justify unsound legislation by a blind confidence that it will not be used in the sense in which it has been pat on the Statute Book."

While it is true that Government is in the best position to judge security matters, it cannot escape the visible evidence that the Colony has by now returned to normal. The Colony will never be entirely free from the threat of disturbances, but that does not justify the retention of the totally unfettered power contained in Regulation 31. On the one hand, the Government is saying that the power will be surrendered as soon as the emergency is over, but on the other hand that it ought not hastily to repeal Regulation 31 because its existence.

This is circular. prevents the emergency from recurring.

The words of Herbert Morrison, MP, on Britain's Re- gulation 158, are very pertinent: "I think that any Minister is capable of being wicked when he has a body of regulations like this to administer." The fact that Government has been dishonest in its statements about the regulations does nut It give confidence that it is incapable of abusing its power. is not hard, for example, to imagine the regulation being used against genuine but militant trade unionists. It is quite wrong that even a male fide use of the power cannot be challenged in the courts; habeas corpus will only lie if the I crsun detailed is not the person named in the order. Judicial review is entirely excluded.

The law-abiding have reason to fear Regulation 31 be- cause there is little safeguard against either genuine errors or the malevolence either of informers or officials. Moreover, if all the detainees were "openly and deeply involved" in violance as the authorities assert, it is rather difficult to see; why the trial process was not appropriate. And how can we be confident that all the detainees were justly detained if the machinery for preventing errors and abuse, is so manifestly inadequate?

The obvious conclusion is that Regulation. 29, 30 and 31 require amendment. There seems no good reason (poce the President of the Law Society) for keeping quiet about Regulation 31 until after the emergency is over. Apart from the fact that it appears to have already ended, the time to protest against an evil is surely while the evil exists.

Quotations for Selected Hongkong Shores

Llang

Bawend.

Dan

Acaly

karen 19a DN

Perview

Jack ww

Jalert Final

THEA

Kale

Lp er Howa

03.

У вагіт

buck 154 29

I uv

Altere

IT EL TANK

L. Fra

Tod

Pack of 18, 20 Jak d Leland Ink

Hanbul

Jan. 1

Wesk

Ebare

Jan. 3

Week

12600

5.70

4.00

196,05

1214

102

5.10

4.45

1.00

||10

65,000

DISTAN 4.17

(*. a.) China Light TE. TR.

----

17.50% 31.14 +1.41 34.75 20,00 +4.50 29.00

5 18.71

→

Julerim mal

12.1-3

1.25

7.14

15.24

1.50*

4.1/4

10.40

4.60 1.7

<,17

42,00

$7,50

7,00

Macao Doctric ..

1.404

6.0

1.44

NIL

7.10m

17,40

700

4.40

IX. 44.

24.70

40.50

1970

0.55

1.29

4.10

124

0.20

12,0

4.7%

0.20 L.to

$45

ILK. Ga

TLAND

|+90

4,.)

Allad sel

745 KINGS

2.50

324

4,15

476

Judae

24.70 -1 0.74

2120

0.40 075

4.15

TEK. PureL

1700 117

LTIN

97900

0.45

וול,0

K.70

6.4. Cemet

21.00 - 1.20

26)

12.54

NIL

NH,

1121

4,04

Meta) Jad.

-| 0.35

6.325

4.25

A. DAT

VI LA

7.1

0.11

2.06

100%

5 1

Auroy day, T. Där Water

25,0

그

2000

360

12.60

02.00

0,50

45.50

37.25

2.20 2,53

3.55

0.75

דו".

G20

(

Trevor

15.54

+ 1

MASO

12.0

5.57

14,4%

1:25

46.75

11.00

1,00 2.50

J.31

2,41

4.11

Deny Tanak

TEL. W

70.00

11 51

4.1

- --

Jane Goodand

340

+1.50 40,50

50.50

31.4

1.20 2.45

7.5.3

14.4,

2.53

7.135

-77

Hart

St.18

4,5

440

NIL

XIL

06,20

30.40

12,AN

610

14.0

$.04

China In

17.20

-1- 0/0

1903

1.5

　　　　　　　　　ka 14.1

J. Filty

...

- (410)

PROCH

14,400

1.101!

7.4.2

AN IN

1.04

4 0.14

10.

2.75

6.77

ון!

SAND

30 2

145

1,75

5.11

K. 5. Hung

210

ISKON

6.00

مرا

J.J

UNI

وميا

Wing Os

G6.04

ם 53

* 0%

2+.500

11.00

1.90

7.7%

Obeng Fan

A li

11.23 2420

2000

2.75

Akd

1. Canal,

23.10 -0.50 17,80

43.00

17.60

XIL

SIL

17.10

0.25

2.10

די.לן

T-

030

10,00

1100

1.50

5.14

Vaba M

144

MIL

Cay

Huge Fa

0.70

Tracle Cup.

+0.25

5.40

JEWI

1.70

S.N

LINC

1stch

Star Tro

11%. Franny EX..

740,000 AVAN

KOCKY

15.02

53 00

Naoyang MgO

11.20

← P.N

4,10

0.37

2.07

0.20 -15 12.4.0 +4 201

1.20

14,412

0.50

DECAL

4.2

5+54

£2.75

2.00

120

721

5. Som Vanuite Text Ail

37.40 21.00

+44

17.500

0.00

1.10

4.11

24 14

1740

(60 0.75

5.42

10.10

2.00

4.35

405

Rubber Tent

5.ป

›

£50

0.42

0,40

29.50

14,00

1.00

1,50

I.FI ++0.00

420

0.43

7.02

2140

27.00

15.44

1.30

5.51

Pak Trama

$2.00A

4.50

31.50

250

7.11

Skaughal KIL Sangala

D.WTH

1.64

199

0.0$

2.50€

3.01

2.50

0.06.

0.12

3.16

• - Nuajaul. • Dividends paid quartedly.

Source Weekly Report, Tidigkong Stock Embange Jad,

Flur Benual † 204 11$0.50

111$1.60.

= $2.00.

EN CLAIR

HONG KONG TO FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

TELNO BIS 2

14 FEBRUARY 1969

PBQ

UNCLASSIFIED

On more emergency regulation introduced during nineteen sixty seven disturbances is to be repealed and incorporated

in modified form in Summary Offences Ordinance.

Emergency Regulation 1190 (repeat 1491) makes it offence be in possession simulated bomb.

It stipulates penalty up to five thousand dollars or two years imprisonment on summary conviction and up to

ten thousand dollars or five years on indictment."

Todays Gazette contains Bill which be introduced

Logislative Council February twenty sixth.

Summary Offences (Amendment) Bill 1969 seeks retain in

Law Regulation 119D.

　　It provides for reduced penalty of five thousand dollars or imprisonment for one year.

Government spokesman said this move in line with Government policy which is to keep emergency legislation

under constant review.

BRITINFORM

Sir D. Trench

DEPARTMENTAL DISTRIBUTION

Information Policy Dept.

Information Administration Dept.

Information Research Dept.

News Dept.

Hong Kong Dept.

Far Eastern Dept.

AAAAA

RECEIVED IN ARGINIVES No.31

1 7 FEB 1969

HICK14/201

En Clair

HONG KONG TO FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

Telno. BIS 3

14 February, 1969

เ

UNCLASSIFIED

15h boks a HKIL 14/22

A law to deal with acid crimes is proposed today.

　　If passed by Legislative Council it will make it offence for anyone have in public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse corrosive fluid capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm.

Offences Against the ferson (Amendment) Bill 1969

published in Government Gazette today.

When Bill is passed Regulation 1190 (repeat 1190) of Emergency (Principal) Reguletion which also made it offence to possess any corrosive substance will be discontinued.

Proposed Bill is more limited in scope than Regulation

1190 as it restricts offence to possession in public place only.

Britinform.

Sir D. Trench.

DEPARTMENTAL DISTRIBUTION Information Policy Dept. News Dept. Hong Kong Dept. Far Eastern Dept. Legel Advisers DIS. M.O.D.

XXXXX

le.plo.

135 22/2

Nr Marsh

fl see QBE

added to the fil chau

24/2

62/c/1

рата

CONFIDENTIAL

CR 6/3231/59

Dear

Gothur

1.271

R&R.

GOVERNMENT HOUSE

HONG KONG

Mr. Carter

I Muick Meat sted in reported

& The Dunster

of State

28 264.

П. Слабина

Pls submit accally.

Lo February 1969

27/2

With my savingram No. 70, I sent you a

You

paper summarising our plans for dealing with various items of emergency legislation introduced in 1967. will be glad to hear that we have now completed a study of our remaining active emergency legislation brought into force prior to 1967, much of it in fact in 1950, and the attached paper sets out recommendations on this score which I have agreed to. Executive Council will be informed, but formal submission to Council is not necessary.

The net result will be the continuance in force of Emergency (Principal) Regulations 37 and 40 for the time being; the repeal of E.P.R. 50, 51 and 25 (the last when similar provision has been made in our

and the discontinuance of the permanent legislation);

remaining 26 E.P.R.S.

　　　　　　　　　　　　Orders will now be made under Section 35 of the Public Order Ordinance but there is no danger in this. They will not be gazetted, as they are simply administrative directions, and will remain unknown except to the officers concerned.

When all this is announced the point will be made that this wholesale discontinuance of E.P.R.S was not possible in the past, the provision for doing so We will of course having been introduced only in 1968. present these decisions as part of a comprehensive study of emergency legislation in force since 1950.

Sir

RECEIVED IN ARCHIVES No.31

2 8 FEB 1969

HKK14/20

Чип

David!"

ever

CONFIDENTIAL

sworthy, K.C.M.G.,

2712

See 2(1)

G.F. 121

CONFIDENTIAL

CR 6/3231/59 IV

Review of Emergency Legislation.

Second Stage

Emergency (Principal) Regulations in Force

Since Before 1967.

Decisions have already been taken on the disposal or continuation of various items of Emergency Legislation brought into force in 1967 and these have been endorsed by the Executive Council at its meeting on 4th February. It now remains to come to a similar conclusion on the 31 Emergency (Principal) Regulations which have been in force since before 1967; a list of these is attached. The great majority of these have in fact been in force since 1950.

The Committee, under the Solicitor General's chairmanship, which was appointed to review Emergency Legislation has now furnished its recommendations on this second category of En.ergency Legislation, as follows :-

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Regulations 50 and 51.

These give powers to control the entry and departure of ships and aircraft, and to detain ships, aircraft and vehicles as well as the persons on board. Regulation 51 will be used in the event of a foreign military aircraft landing in Hong Kong. Similar powers have since been provided in the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 241), Section 34 of which allows for the control and employment of vessels and aircraft; and Section 35 of which authorises the Governor to detain vessels and aircraft if it is in the, interests of public order to do so. The Committee recommends that orders should now be made under Section 35 of the Public Order Ordinance authorising the detention of any C. P. G. or Taiwanese military aircraft that may land without authority in Hong Kong; Regulations 50 and 51 should then be repealed.

Regulation 25. This makes it an offence to display placards and other material which incite to violence. The Committee recommends that an equivalent provision should be made in permanent legislation and Regulation 25 then repealed.

Regulation 37. This empowers the C. P. to make an order excluding any person from particular areas of the Colony, or requiring him, to report his movements, etc. A Police Supervisio Order has been made in respect of one detainee under this Regulation and it should therefore remain in force until it is felt that such orders are not likely to be necessary.

Regulation 40. This is an ancillary power to the detention powers conferred in Regulations 29 an 31. The Committee recommends that it should remain in force as long as they do, and be discontinued with them in due course.

CONFIDENTIAL

/ (5) ...

وادار

1. F. 323

(5)

CONFIDENTIAL

- 2

The remaining 26 Regulations should be discontinued, i.e. they will remain in the Statute Book as Emergency (Principal) Regulations not in force.

COLONIAL SECRETARIAT,

11th February, 1969.

CONFIDENTIAL

BRUITM

GP. 313

CONFIDENTIAL

ANNEX

Emergency (Principal) Regulations

Regulations in force since before 1967.

Powers

Requisitioning

68 and 69

Requisitioning and comniandeering of property other than land.

Application of the Defence Compensation Regulations.

Control of Communications :

50 and 59

Prohibition on ships and aircraft from entering or leaving the Colony.

Detention of vessels, aircraft, vehicles and persons therein.

Prohibition on supplying aircraft and ships.

Control and restrictions on use of territorial waters and roads.

Stopping and searching vehicles and vessels.

Control of activities by individual:

100

126

Prohibition on documents inciting to violence.

Declaration of special areas with consequent powers to stop and search persons therein.

Transfer of persons in custody.

Restriction orders on movement of

persona

Detention of persons for enquiry.

Photographing and finger-printing of suspects.

Entry and search of premises, vehicles, vessels and aircraft.

Proscribing of organisations,

General power to affix notices.

Offences.

Possession of illegal wireless.

Distribution of placards etc, inciting to violence.

CONFIDENTIAL

/ 125.

I..P. 123

CONFIDENTIAL

125

117

118

119

120

124

132

133, 134, 135

and 136

- 2 -

Damage or interference with public works or communications.

Possession of offensive weapons.

Consorting with persons possessing arms ammunition etc.

Failure to report offence of carrying arms, ammunition etc.

Consorting with or harbouring persons wearing unauthorised uniforms etc.

Increased penalties for certain offences in closed or protected areas.

Offences in connection with licences and permits.

Ancillary provisions with regard to offences.

11th February, 1969.

CONFIDENTIAL

100027

C.3. 20A

SAVING DESPATCH

　From the Governor, Hong Kong & Commonwealth Affairs To the Secretary of State for *k* Gotă**&%

Repeated to:-

Repeated to:

267

No.

March, 1969.

17 MAR 1969

RECEIVED IN

ARCHIVES Ne 51

Reference...GR.2/3011/46.

Your Reference..

LILI---I

iUKKIN 20

Mr. Creech Jones' Circular Savingram of 18th July 1946v

Faergency Legislation

　　　　In accordance with the request in the last paragraph of the savingram under reference, I report below the general position for the six months period from 1st September 1968 to 28th February 1969.

Defence Regulations

(1) No Defence Regulations were enacted or revoked during this

period.

(2) Enactments continued in forca

　　　　By a resolution made and passed on 18th December 1968 (L.N. 124/68), the Legislative Council extended the duration of the Defence Regulations (Continuation) Ordinance (Chapter 309) for the term of one year with effect from 1st January 1969.

Emergency Regulationa

(1) Except as indicated in sub-paragraph (2), no new Emergency

Regulations were enacted during this period.

(2) Amendmenta

By the Emergency (Principal) (Amendment) Regulations 1969 (L.N. 16/69), the Emergency (Principal) Regulations were amended by the addition of four new regulations, 127, 127A, 127B and 1270C, dealing with inflammatory posters and speeches. These new regulations incorporated into the principal regulations in revised form the provisions of the Emergency (Prevention of Inflammatory Speeches) Regulations 1967 (L.N. 80/67) and the Emergency (Prevention of Inflammatory Posters) Regulations 1967 (L.N. 83/67) both of which were consequentially repealed.

The new regulations 127, 127A, 127B and 1270 have not been brought into operat-

ion.

The Emergency (Principal) Regulations were further amended by the repeal of regulations 88 and 101 thereof. (se

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　see sub-paragraph (4)(a) below.)

(3) Discontimmance of Operation

　　　　By the Emergency (Principal) Regulations (Discontinuance) Order 1969 (L.N. 9/69), the operation of the regulations of the Emergency (Principal) Regulations specified in the following Table

was discontinued:

TABLE.

Regulation

129

Subject matter

Dissemination of false reports.

Power to seize weapons.

Sabotage.

(4) Repeals

(a) By the Emergency Regulations (Repeal) (No. 2) Order 1968

(L.N. 102/68), the following regulations were repealed

(1) Regulations 88 and 101 of the Emergency (Principal) Regulations. Regulation 88 contained provisions relating to the holding of criminal proceedings in camera and these provisions have been incorporated into the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Chapter 221). Regulation 101 contained provisions relating to special constables and this regulation was repealed because adequate provisions relating to special constables are now contained in the Public Order Ordinance (Chapter 245).

(ii) The Emergency (Courts) Regulations 1967 (L.N. 79/67) the provisions of which have been incorporated in the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Chapter 221).

(iii) The Emergency (Legal Aid in Criminal Cases) (District Court) Regulations 1967 (L.N. 138/67). These regulations were repealed in consequence of the discontinuance of operation of regulation 136▲ of the Emergency (Principal) Regulations (which increased District Court's power of sentence for certain offences).

These

(b) By the Emergency (Firework) (Repeal) Order 1968 (L.N. 120/68),

the Emergency (Firework) Regulations were repealed. Regulations were enacted in 1967 mainly for the purpose of enabling the Authorities to exercise the necessary control of fireworks so as to deprive those who made terrorist bomba of the material with which to make them. It was considered that adequate control could be exercised in relation to fireworks under the Dangerous Goods Ordinance (Chapter 295) and regulations made thereunder. Accordingly, the Dangerous Goods (General) Regulations (which inter alia provided for exemption from certain prohibitions in relation to the conveyance and storage of quantities of fireworks of less than 50 lb.) were, concurrently with the repeal of the Emergency (Firework) Regulations, amended by removing such exemption and thereby subjecting any quantity of fireworks whatsoever to control. Since adequate control of fireworks could be effected under the Dangerous Goods Ordinance, the Emergency (Firework) Regulations were no longer required and were therefore repealed.

- 3

the following were repealed -

(1) The Emergency (Prevention of Inflammatow Speeches) Regulations 1967 (L.N. 80/67) and the Emergency (Prevention of Inflammatory Posters) Regulations 1967 (L.N. 83/67), the provisions of which have been incorporated into the Emergency (Principal) Regulations though, as has been mentioned in paragraph 3(2) above, they have not been brought into operation.

(ii) The Emergency (Closed Areas) Regulations 1967 (L.N. 99/67) These have been repealed because adequate provisions are contained in the Public Order Ordinance (Chapter 245).

(iii) The Emergency (General Holiday) Regulations 1967 (L.N. 180/67) which were concerned with devaluation and have had their effect.

(a) In consequence of the repeal of the Emergency (Closed Areas)

Regulations 1967, the following Orders which were made in 1967 under the Regulations have lapsed

(i) the Emergency (Closed Areas) (North Point Power Station) Order 1967 (L. N. 100/67);

(ii) the Emergency (Closed Areas) (Hok Yuen Power Station) Order 1967 (L.N. 101/67); and

(iii) the Emergency (Closed Areas) (Hong Kong Tramways Limited Depot, Workshops and Welfare Centre) Order 1967 (L.N. 107/67).

CYPHER/CAT A

PRIORITY HONG KONG

TELECRAN NUMBER 481

CONFIDENTIAL

TO FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

14 JUNE 1969

ADDRESSED F C O TELO 481 OF 14 JUNER FI PEKING

EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

A FURTHER REVIEW OF EMERGENCY LEGISLATION STILL IN FORCE HAS

BEEN CARRIED CUT. AT THE PRESENT TIME ONLY THE FOLLOWING ITEMS

OF THE EMERGENCY (PRINCIPAL) REGULATIONS REMAIN IN FORCE:-

REGULATIONS 2,3,4,25, 29(1),30,31,37,49,66,85,96, 105A, 1006,

10,113,134, AND 136. THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL OF THESE ARE

REGULATIOUS 29(1),38,31 AND 42 WHICH RELATE TO THE DETENTION

OF PERSONS UNDER AN ORDER MADE BY THE COLONIAL SECRETARY.

YOU ARE ALREADY AWARE THAT NO PERSONS ARE NOW DETAINED UNDER

REGULATION 31.

I INTEND TO TAKE ACTION ON THE ABOVE AS FOLLOWS:-

(A) REGULATIONS 29(1), 30, 31 AND 43 WILL BE DISCONTINUED BY

AN ORDER TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GOVERNMENT GAZETTE ON FRIDAY,

29TH JUNE. AN EXAMINATION TO SEE WHETHER IN DUE COURSE ANY

AMENDMENT OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THESE REGULATIONS SHOULD BE MADE,

AND IF SO AT WHAT STAGE IT SHOULD BE ENACTED, IS IN HAND.,

(B) REGULATIONS 66 AND 110 WILL BE SIMILARLY DEALT WITH AT THE

SAME TIME

/(c)

RECEIVED IN

RUSTRY Nɔ.51

114. JUN 1969

HILIL14/20

CONFIDENTIAL

схо

CONFIDENTIAL

　　(C) REGULATIONS 3,4,85,170A, 1200 AND 131 WHICH MAKE GENERAL AND PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO OTHER REGULATICHS WILL

SIMILARLY AND SIMULTANEOUSLY BE DISCONTINUED.

(D) THE INTENTION IS THAT REGULATIONS 25,96 AND 113 SHOULD BE

INCORPORATED IN DUE COURSE IN PERMANENT LEGISLATION AND

THEY WILL THEREFORE FOR THE TIME BEING BE RETAINED IN FORCE.

REGULATION 37 WHICH PROVIDES FOR RESTRICTION ON MOVEMENT,

RESIDENCE, ETC. OF INDIVIDUALS IS STILL REQUIRED FOR THE TIME

CLE AS ORDERS MADE UNDER THIS REGULAT 101 AGAINST A LIITED

SAYER OF LAIVIDUALS STILL DU. SIST.

F) REGULATION 2 PICH IS PURELY INTERPRETATIVE WILL REMAIN IN FORCE.

(G) REGULATION 136 HIGH IS A GENERAL PENALTY CLAUSE IS

REQUIRED UNTIL REGULATIONS 25, 37,96 AND 113 ARE NO LONGER IN FORCE.

F.C.O. PLEASE PASS PRIORITY TO PEKING,

SIR D. TRENCH

[REPEATED AS REQUESTED]

DEFARTMENTAL DISTRIBUTION

HONG KONG DEPT.

F.E.D.

LEGAL ADVISERS

NEWS DEPT.

O.P.A.

M.O.D. (INTERNAL)

FFFFF

CONFIDENTIAL

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN

Registry No. HKK 14/20 HKK14/20 thing long best,

DEPARTMENT

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

Top-SECTET Secret

Confidential Restricted

Unclassifed

PRIORITY MARKINGS

Flash-

Immediate Priorly Routine

(Date)....

* Date and time (G.M.T.) telegram should

reach addressee(s)....

Despatched

PRIVACY MARKING

In Confidence

"In Clair. Code Cypher

Draft Telegram 6:-

Gov. Hay King

　завь 1

No.

(Dale) 16 June

And to:-

Repeat to:--

Saving to:-

Distribution:-

Files.

H. K.D.

[Security classification]

[

-if any

Privacy marking 1

-if any

[Codeword-if any]

Addressed to

telegram No....

And to

J.-J

767

1646

CYPHER

lecafidential

Gormar Hong Kong..

repeated for information to...

Saving to

(date)

Your telegram No. 181. [Emergency Legistation. ]

It is possible that position regarding emergency

regulations may

by raised by supplementary

SORENSEN'S

question when reply is gevin to Lord Sovensen's

Parliamenting Question

belegans No. 456 refers). If repeat this

Lappens

on 19 June (your

reparatio

Minister cones

intention to discontinue

it would be helpful if

F.ED. Copies to:-

Say

that it is

16/6.

your

Certain emergency regulations, including Regulation 31, on 20 June (your parapath 3 (A)} } refers). Gratiful to learn earliest whether

you

world

/ see

See any Rjection to this informations

here

　being disclosed on the day before you intend to descontine the Regulations

iap

It would not

concerned.

be disclosed unless matter were

Specifically

raised in supplementaries.

(8430) Dd.033246 600m 9/66 G.W.B.Ltd, Gp.863

(зеле

ANS

16.6.69.

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN

CYPHER/CAT A

CONFIDENTIAL

　　IMMEDIATE FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE TELEGRAM NUMBER 396

CONFIDENTIAL.

YOUR TELNO 481: EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

TO HONG KONG

16 JUNE 1969 (H.K.D.)

HKK 14/20

　　IT IS POSSIBLE THAT POSITION REGARDING EMERGENCY REGULATIONS MAY BE RAISED BY SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION WHEN REPLY IS GIVEN TO LORD SORENSEN'S PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION ON 19 JUNE (YOUR TELNO 456 REFERS). IF THIS HAPPENS IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF MINISTER COULD SAY THAT IT IS YOUR INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE CERTAIN EMERGENCY REGULATIONS, INCLUDING REGULATION 31, ON 20 JUNE (YOUR PARAGRAPH 3(A) REFERS), GRATEFUL TO LEARN EARLIEST WHETHER YOU WOULD SEE ANY OBJECTION TO THIS INFORMATION BEING DISCLOSED HERE ON THE DAY BEFORE YOU INTEND TO DISCONTINUE THE REGULATIONS CONCERNED. IT WOULD NOT BE DISCLOSED UNLESS

MATTER WERE SPECIFICALLY RAISED IN SUPPLEMENTARIES,

STEWART

FILES

HONG KONG DEPT.

FAR EASTERN DEPT.

NNNNN

CONFIDENTIAL

100

IMMEDIATE HONG KONG

CONFIDENTIAL

TO FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

TELEGRAM NUMBER 486

17 JUNE 1969.

CONFIDENTIAL

YOUR TELEGRAM 396 : EMERGENCY LEGISLATION,

　　29TH JUNE IS MERELY THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE GAZETTE AND HAS NO PARTICULAR SIGNIFICANCE. IN ORDER TO AVOID LOCAL PRESS, ETC. FIRST HEARING OF THIS FROM LONDON, WE WILL ANNOUNCE OUR INTENTION ON 19TH

JUNE AND INFORMATION CAN THEN BE USED FREELY.

2. I HOPE NO IMPRESSION WILL BE GIVEN THAT THESE DECISIONS WERE TAKEN

AS A RESULT OF LORD SHEPHERD'S VISIT. AS YOU ARE AWARE, THIS IS NOT

THE CASE.

3. LAST SENTENCE IN PARA.3(A) OF MY TELEGRAM 481 SHOULD BE TREATED

WITH CARE. IF QUESTIONED ABOUT POSSIBLE AMENDMENT HERE, WE SHALL

ANSWER ONLY TO THE EFFECT THAT THESE REGULATIONS, LIKE OTHERS, ARE

ALL SUSCEPTIBLE TO RE-EXAMINATION IF AT ANY TIME THERE APPEARS TO

BE A NEED TO DO SO. IT IS IMPORTANT TO AVOID ANY SUGGESTION THAT ANY

AMENDMENTS ARE LIKELY WHICH WILL MATERIALLY REDUCE THEIR COMPLETE

EFFECTIVENESS IN EMERGENCY.

SIR D. TRENCH

FILES

H.K.D.

F.E.D.

SIR A. GALSWORTHY

SIR J. JOHNSTON

ADVÁNCE COPIES SENT

RECEIVED IN- REGISTRY No.51

17 JUN 1969

CONFIDENTIAL HKK 14/20

En Clair

TOP COPY

HONG KONG TO FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

Telno BIS 14

UNCLASSIFIED

19 June 1969

PRESS

Twelve more emergency Regulations are to be discontinued. They include Regulation 31 which empowers Colonial Secretary detain people for periods up to one year.

Order will be published Government Gazette tomorrow

Friday.

"this

Commenting on order Government spokesman said action been taken following review which been carried out over past year to ensure that none of emergency Regulations

are kept in force longer than is necessary.

However discontinued Regulations could be brought into force again should need arise" Ends Informs.

DEPARTMENTAL DISTRIBUTION

HONG KONG DEPT.

F.E.D.

DEF. POL. DEPT.

P.U.S.D.

O.P.A.

LEGAL ADVISERS

NEWS DEPT.

FFFFF

RECEIVED IN

REGISTRY No.51

20 JUN 1969

HK/14/20

Hongkong Standard

635, King's Road, North Point, Hongkong

Telephone 616222-8

Member Audit Bureau of Circulations.

Page 8 Saturday, March 22, 1969

Must clause 31 stay on?

IN January this year, the Government, upon review

of the Emergency Regulations, revoked Clauses 27, 4] and 129 from them, and said that as conditions in Hongkong became more normal, further regulations would be repealed.

The Government has now revoked twenty-five more emergency regulations, but warning at the same time they could be reimposed whenever the occasion warrants it.

As they existed on the whole, the Emergency Regulations were never popular in Hongkong. But it became evident to the public during 1967 riots, when the fate of the Colony appeared to hang in the balance, that it was essential for the Government to promulgate Diaconian laws.

Hongkong, in those days, was living in an abrasive climate ol disturbances and violence. Consequently, drastic action was needed to cope with the situation.

But this drastic situation no longer exists. The Government has had plenty of time to review the regulations thoroughly, but it has not yet thought it expedient to repeal the controversial Clause 31 of the Emergency Regulations.

This had sparked a vehement attack by the Hongkong Bar Association on grounds that it gave Government sweeping totalitarian powers, making Hongkong a police state.

Regulation 31 enables the Colonial Secretary to detain any person for a period not exceeding a year, But as the Colonial Secretary is not infallible, an innocent man could be arrested and detained without having recourse to legal protection.

This regulation, which was justified in 1967 during the riots, has no basis today. So its retention is pernicious and undemocratic.

We think it not unreasonable to ask the Government to revoke it as soon as possible in the interest of public confidence in the Colony.

For one thing, existence of Regulation 31 would only remind the public of a black period in Hongkong's history which is best forgotten.

So why retain it, unless Government wants the public to think that conditions here, however normal They may seem on the surface, are still fraught with *úncertainty, and it's best to be on one's guard under

the circumstances.

RECEIVED IN ARCHIVES No.31

- 8 APR 1969,

NKX14/20

Extract from

Waike Information Dulletri),

Rsfile

datest 26 will. Ron E. Rs.

- 2

MORE EMERGENCY REGULATIONS REPEALED.

Four more amurgency regulations have boon repealed and one anonded.

Today's (Friday) Government Gazette contains an Etergency Regulations

(Ropoal) Order and an Emergency (Principal) (Amendment) Regulations which

offcct this.

and 119E.

The Order repoals Emergency (Principal) Regulations 50, 51, 119D

Rogulations 50 and 51 give power to control the entry and departure

of ships and aircraft and to dotain ships, aircraft and vehiclos as woll

as people on board. They are no longor necessary as similar power exist

in the Public Order Ordinanco.

Rogulation 119D makes possession of a simulated bomb an offence

and 119E provides a defonce to a person charged with such an offonce by

showing that the object was not intended for use as a simulated bomb.

Tho Summary Offences (Amendment) Bill, recently enacted, makes similar provisions so that both those regulations can now be repealed.

Regulation 119h, which has not been repealed, makes it an offence

for any one to frequent or be found in promises containing any arms or

ammunition, any offensive weapon, any explosive substanco, any corrosive

substanco or any simulated bomb.

This regulation is amonded to include a dofonce to a porson charged

ith an offence in connection with a simulatod borb. Provision for this

dofeneo was previously made in Regulation 119E.

KBCEIVED IN ARCHIVES N. 31

APR 1969

ник

HKCK 14/20

13.....

HONG KONG GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION SERVICES

RECEIVED IN

DAILY INFORMATION R. GETRY No. 51

BULLETIN

- 2 MAY 1969

нке

Friday, Larch 21, 1969 LAKE 14/20

- 11

نا

TWENTY-FIVE LORE EVERGENCY (PRINCIPAL) REGOLUTIONS DISCONTINUED

Tionty-five more morgoney regulations are to be discontinued.

Most of these have been a part of the law since 1950 but discontinuance

was not possible in the past since there was no provision to discontinuo

thom whilst at the sam timo proscrving the ability to re-activate them

at short notice should the nood arise. The provision to enable this to

bo dono was introduced last year.

"Government has no desire to rotain in active force omorgency

rogulations that are not required and the position is roviewed regularly,"

a Goverment spokesman said today (Friday).

Today's Government Gazotto contains an Ordor nado by the Governor

discontinuing 25 Emergency (Principal) Regulations.

"This Order was nado after a comprehensive study of the nood to

koop omergency regulations which have boon in forçc since 1950," the

spokosman said.

The discontinued regulations could be made active again should tho

noed eriso.

to Editors:

The list of the 25 omorgency regulations

to be discontinuod is contained in the Discontinuance

Order that is published in Logal Supplement No. 2

of today's Government Gazette.

A list is also attached at Appendix "/"

at the end of this Bullotin.

Release Tini 200-Rımı

HK, L,S.

21. 3.69.

AFFE.DEX "A\"

REGULATIONS TO NE DISCONTINUED

Rog. 21 Wireless telography, etc.

26 Publication may be prohibited.

34 Declaration of special areas and duties of persons therein.

36 Transfer of percons in custody.

52 Prohibition as to supply of fuel, victuals, and necessaries,

and the repair of ships and aircraft.

58 Control of territorial and colonial waters.

59 Control of roads and travel by vehicle and temporary control

of territorial waters and colonial waters.

68 Requisition of property other than land.

69 Power to comardeer property other than land.

83 Application of Compensation (Defence) Regulations.

86 General power to affix notices,

99 Identification of persons in custody.

100 Powers of entry and search of prenises, places, vehicles,

vossels or aircraft.

117 Offensive weapons.

118 Consorting with person carrying or having possession of

arms, ammunition, explosive substance or offensivo weapon.

119 Failure to report offence of carrying or possessing arms,

ammunition or explosive substance or offensive weapon.

1190 Possession of corrosive substance.

120 Consorting with or harbouring persons wearing unauthorised

unifoms, etc.

124 Certain offences in closed, protected, damaged or evacuated

areas to be punishable with life imprisonment.

125 Damage or interference with public works or communications,

126 Power of Governor in Council to proscribe organization.

132 Alteration and improper use of licences and permits.

133 Attempt to commit an offence to bo doomed an offenco.

134 Liability for offences.

135 Obtaining possession, whore possession is an offence.

Reference

110

Flag (2

Flag. 316

| and subsidiary

mauli Shereended

and other miner emergency imeascapes made under Cap 241

Repieces o 28.569

Repeated a

21.3.69.

Mr. Carter

The attached Saving Despatch from Hong Kong and the attached letter from the Governor to Sir Arthur Galsworthy, together with their enclosures, set out the present position of emergency legislation in the Colony, together with the Governor's future intentions in this matter.

The attached correspondence goes into some detail and differentiates between emergency legislation which has been in force in Hong Kong since as long ago as 1950, and the more recent legislation which was introduced in 1967 as a result of the disturbances which occurred during that year.

For the purposes of this summary, however, I have disregarded that differentiation and simply show those Emergency (Principal) Regulations which are still in force, together with the Governor's intentions in respect of them.

The following Emergency (Principal) Regulations are still in force and will need to continue in force until such time as it proves possible to release the four remaining detainees:

Regulation No. 29 (paragraph 1 only) the

power to arrest and detain suspected person.

Regulation 30 the power to arrest persons

suspected of being liable to detention;

Regulation 31

Regulation 40

enquiry;

power to order detention;

power to detain persons for

The Emergency (Committee of Review) Rules and

Amendment Rules, 1967.

When the remaining detainees are released, the application of the above legislation will be dis- continued and the legislation will be enacted as part of the Emergency (Frincipal) Regulations which will be inactive but ready for the next emergency.

4. The following Emergency (Principal) Regulations are still in force but will be repealed as soon as they have been incorporated (in some cases in a less stringent form) into permanent legislation:

Regulation 25 creates the offence of

displaying placards and other material which incites to violence;

Regulations 50 and 51 - power to control the entry and departure of ships and aircraft and to detain ships, aircraft, vehicles and personnel on board;

Regulation 96

power to require members of the public to identify themselves to Police Officers and military personnel;

Regulation 113

Regulation 119C

substances;

obstruction:

possession of corrosive

　Repeated on 28369 Repealed 28.3 69

Regulation 119D

bomb;

possession of a simulated

Regulation 119E defence in respect of

charges under Regulations 119A and 119D;

Legal Notice 99/67 closed area regulations;

Legal Notice 109/67- public health

regulations.

5. There is one other regulation (Regulation 37) which empowers the Commissioner of Police to make Police Supervision Orders excluding any person from particular areas of the Colony or requiring him to report his movements, etc. One of the recently released detainees is already the subject of such an Order and it may well prove necessary to continue this particular Regulation in force after all the others have been either repealed or discontinued.

As regards those Regulations listed above which are to be repealed as soon as their provisions have been embodied in permanent legislation, steps to enact the necessary permanent legislation for this purpose are well in hand.

Apart from the above, all the remaining Emergency (Principal) Regulations have been repealed

or discontinued.

3 March, 1969

Sw A. Galsworthy

(A. W. Gaminara) Hong Kong Department

Mr.

Gooden

Please

Sa Mr. Gaminiara's manute

Cleve

When all the emergency measures noted in

5° above have been discontinued,

paras 3, 4

There will still remain in force the Emergency

and Detention) Regulations

(Deportation and

made under Caps 241, providing for the

detention

ahens where deportation has

proved impracticable. This

is a power that has

been in facce sonce 1956 and used to curb

The actrerties of persons promment in triad

Societies, illegal immigration rachets, dring trafficking, ek. maandanas CAA Although there

aire

home detamed under these Regs at the

么

Reference

fresent time

me, it is not a power

do is not a power that can be

dispensed with.

2. A short draft reply to the Governor

br. 5. Carter

3/8/69

attached,

HKK 14/20

Reference

Mr. Gaminara

We had a word about these papers this afternoon. It seems to me there is one point which is not brought out in these minutes.

We are to a large extent dismantling the Emergency Regulations in Hong Kong by incorporating them in the Colony's permanent legislation. In the particular circumstances of Hong Kong this seems to me a right and sensible thing to do: the continuance in force of measures which in their title carry the word and connotation of emergency gives people in Hong Kong, and even more people in this country or elsewhere, and such organisations as Justice etc., a

false idea about conditions in the Colony; while at the same time, given Hong Kong's circumstances, the authorities there need to have powers immediately

available to them to deal effectively with any out- break, and above all to nip any potential outbreak in the bud and thus to prevent it from erupting with all that that entails in Hong Kong.

3. The point at which we may incur criticism (often well meaning criticism) is if we embody in Hong Kong's permanent legislation matters which, while reasonable

enough in an emergency, may appear to reasonable people to be unreasonable as part of the permanent body of legislation. I quite accept that we must be prepared to face up to the probable need for Hong Kong's permanent legislation to contain provisions which might be difficult to defend in, for example, Bermuda or the Solomons. But I think we must bring any such points specifically to the attention of Ministers, with of course the justification for the

retention of those particular provisions in their permanent legislation, so that Ministers are aware of what is happening and are not suddenly confronted, e.g. in a P.Q., with criticism which they have previously had an opportunity of considering on its merits.

4. I should therefore be grateful if this aspect of the matter could be looked into before Lord Shepherd's return: i.e., let us consider whether any of the

provisions

provisions now being transferred from the Emergency Regulations to the permanent law of the Colony would be unusual or unique features of permanent legislation in a British Colony; and let us also formulate the need and justification for the retention of those particular provisions in the circumstances of Hong

Kong. In this connection there does seem to me to be

some merit in indicating whether any provisions which

we feel might attract criticism were introduced in

1967, or have been a feature of Hong Kong legislation for much longer. I emphasise that I am not seeking to

alter what is being done, which on my reading of these papers seems to me entirely right. My purpose is simply

to ensure that Ministers have brought to their

attention any unusual features which might be the subject of criticism in Parliament, or the press here, or on the part of bodies such as Justice, etc., together with the justification for the retention of those

particular provisions.

Copies to

Mr. Moreton Mr. Carter

Ani.

(A.N. Galsworthy)

17th March, 1969

Reference.

Flag AR

Mr. Carter

In the light of Sir Arthur Galsworthy's minute of 17th March, I am re-casting in the following terms my minute to you of the 3rd March,which can be ignored.

Flag B (6

I have re-hashed the information provided by the Governor in the form of the attached tables which show:

(a) the extent to which those Emergency Regulations which have been in force in Hong Kong since before 1967, have been or are to be embodied in permanent legislation:

(b) the extent to which those Emergency Regulations brought into force during 1967 have been or are to be embodied in permanent legislation;

Regulations are still in force in Hong Kong, whether they were brought into force before 1967 or during that year.

As regards (a), I do not think that this category of Emergency Legislation should present any problem. For one thing, there is very little of it: for another its content is not contentious, and in any event these Regulations have been in force for so long that they have virtually already become part of the scenery.

As regards (b), it will be noted that most of this legislation has been or is to be incorporated in the permanent law through the medium of either the Public Order Ordinance, 1967, or the Criminal Procedure (Amendment)(No.2) Ordinance, 1968. I doubt whether any of the Emergency Legislation, which is to be incorporated into the permanent law, other than in one or other of these two Ordinances, is likely to give rise to criticism.

As regards (c), it is clear that apart from the Emergency (Deportation and Detention) Regulations (which have in any event been in force for many years and which concern only aliens whose deportation has proved impracticable) the few Emergency Regulations still in force are all required in connexion with the remaining four detainees. As soon as those detainees have been released, all these remaining Regulations can be repealed, with the exception of Regulation 37 which will continue to be required as long as Police Supervision Orders are necessary.

The Public Order Ordinance, 1967

The

7. This Ordinance was enacted in November, 1967, after prolonged prior consultation with us. Ordinance has been the subject of considerable criticism. Mr. Rankin, MP, tabled a petition in the House in December, 1967, seeking that the Ordinance should be disallowed. The Hong Kong branch of

"Justice" severely criticised the Ordinance in a long and comprehensive memorandum last year; and Mr. Frank Allaun, MP put down Questions on the 19th December, 1968 and the 10th February, 1969, asking "What changes have now been made in the Hong Kong Public Order Ordinance regarding the extent to which the burden of proof is placed on the authorities." He was informed in reply to these questions that certain provisions of the Ordinance were being examined in consultation with the Governor in the light of criticisms that had been made.

As a result of the memorandum from "Justic " we asked Hong Kong to give further thought to certain of the provisions of the Ordinance and this they have done.

They recently sent us a copy of a draft Bill to amend the Ordinance and this draft Bill is now with the Legal Advisers. It meets the majority of the criticisms raised by "Justice" but there are certain provisions in it on which we do not altogether see eye to eye with the Governor. The Minister may wish to see the Bill before we send the Governor our comments on it. The Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (No.2) Ordinance 1968 9.

This Ordinance was sent to us recently for notification of non-disallowance. It is now with the Legal Advisers who have certain reservations about some of its provisions (relating to the powers of Judges to exclude the public from courts). The Minister may also wish to see this Ordinance before notification of non-disallowance is conveyed to Hong Kong.

Ms.

20 March, 1969

(A. . Gaminara) Hong Kong Department

7/0

(1) Emergency (Frincipal)

Regulation 25

(2) E(F) Regulations 50 & 51

EMERGENCY LEGISLATION WHICH HAS BEEN OR WILL BE

EMBODIED IN PERMANENT LEGISLATION

(A) Emergency legislation which has been in force since before 1967

Makes it an offence to display placards or other material inciting to violence

Give power to control the entry and departure of ships and aircraft; and to detain ships, aircraft and vehicles as well as the persons on board.

Has been in force since 1950 Will be repealed as soon as its provisions have been incorporated into permanent legislation. The Governor has given instruc- tions for this to be done.

Have been in force since 199 and 1958 respectively: these Regulations have now been embodied in Sections 34 and 35 respectively of the Public Order Ordinance, 1967. Administrative directions are now being

given by the Governor under section 35 authorising the detention of any C.R.G. or Taiwanese military aircraft that may land without authority in Hong Kong. these directions have been given, these two Regula- tions will be repealed.

When

NOTE: The above Emergency legislation is the only emergency legislation enacted before 1967 which is

now being incorporated into permanent legislation. Apart from this the only emergency legislation in this category which is still in force (other than the Emergency (Deportation and Detention) Regulations which concern only aliens whose deportation has proved impracticable) are E(P) Regulations 37 (Police Supervision Orders) and 40 (power to detain persons for inquiry). two Regulations must remain in force so long as there are persons remaining in detention under E(P) 31. Regulation 37 may be required for some time thereafter.

These

(1) E(P) Regulation 88

(2) E(P) Regulation 96

(3) E(F) Regulation 107

(4) E(P) Regulation 113

(B) Emergency legislation which was introduced in 1967

Enables a court:-

(a)

(b)

to hold criminal proceedings in camera in the interests of justice, public order or security;

to avoid disclosing the identity of witnesses if the latter are apprehensive for themselves, family, friends or property.

their

Requires any member of the public to identify himself to police officers and military personnel, if required to do so.

Empowers an authorised officer to disperse any assembly or meeting of five or more persons.

Makes it an offence to obstruct any police officer or member of the military forces acting in the course of his duty.

This Regulation has been repealed and its provisions embodied in the Criminal Procedure Ordinance by Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance, 1968. The latter Ordinance has been submitted by the Governor for notification of non-disallow- ance and is now under consideration.

This Regulation will be repealed as soon as its provisions have been incor- porated in permanent legislation. This legislation is being drafted in Hong Kong.

This Regulation has been repealed and replaced by similar powers in section 11 of the Public Order Ordinance, 1967.

This Regulation is to be incorporated in the Public Order Ordinance, 1967, by the Public Order (Amendment) Bill which is at present under con- sideration in the department. As soon as it has been so incorporated the Regulation will be repealed.

/(5)

P) Regulation 1190

(6) E(F) Regulation 119D

(7) E(P) Regulation 119E

(8) E(P) Regulation 127

(9) Legal Notice 79/67.

(Emergency (Courts) Regulations)

Makes it an offence to have possession or custody of or control over any corrosive substance without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

Makes it an offence to have possession or custody of or control over a simulated bomb without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

Provides a defence against charges under 119D in certain circumstances.

Empowers the Commissioner of Police to prohibit the holding of meetings if he is satisfied that such meetings would be likely to disturb public order or interfere with essential services or supplies.

Empowers Judges to exclude the public from courts.

A similar but less stringent provision is to be incorporated into the Offences Against the Person Ordinance. The necessary amending Bill went to the Hong Kong Legislative Council in February, 1969, but the Ordinance has not yet been received in the department. As soon as this Regulation has been so incorporated, it will be repealed.

These Regulations will be repealed as soon as equivalent provisions have been incor- porated in the permanent law. The Summary Offences

(Amendment) Bill, 1969, was introduced into the Hong Kong Legislative Council on 26th February for this purpose. The Ordinance has not yet been received in the department.

This Regulation has been repealed and replaced by similar provisions in sections 7, 11 and 15 of the Public Order Ordinance, 1967.

These Regulations have been repealed and incorporated into the Criminal Procedure Ordinance by the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (No.2) Ordinance, 1968. The latter Ordinance has been forwarded by the Governor for notifica- tion of non-disallowance and is under consideration in the department.

(10) Legal Notice 98/67

(Emergency (Prevention

Regulations.)

(11) Legal Notice 99/67

　　　(Emergency (Closed Areas) Regulations, 1967)

(12) Legal Notice 109/67

(Emergency (Public)

Health and Urban Services Ordinance) (Amendment) Regulations)

(13) Legal Notice 143/67

　　　(Emergency (Fireworks) Regulations 1967)

Designed to strengthen the law to deal with the offence of intimidation.

Empower the Governor to declare build- ings or areas to be "closed areas" thereby prohibiting access by unauthorised persons.

Provide for the disposal of human remains.

Prohibits the unauthorised possession of fireworks.

These Regulations have been repealed and replaced by similar provisions in sections 27 and 28 of the Public Order Ordinance, 1967.

These Regulations have been repealed and incorporated into the Public Order Ordinance, 1967.

These Regulations will be repealed as soon as their provisions have been incorpora- ted in the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance. An amending Bill for this purpose was introduced into the Hong Kong Legislative Council in January, 1969.

These regulations have been repealed but the control over the possession of fireworks has been continued by an amendment to the Dangerous Goods (General) Regulations with effect from 1 January, 1969.

NOTE: The above comprises all that emergency legislation enacted in 1967 which it is proposed to embody in

the permanent law. The only legislation in this category which otherwise remains in force consists of E(P) Regulations 29-31 (powers to arrest and detain) and the Committee of Review Rules, all of which are required so long as persons remain in detention. It is not intended to embody any of this legislation in permanent legislation.

7. Cruchley

ብ.

Reference

mmute below, with the tables attached,

shombod be grateful y

You worked

look

alm

N. Gammara's

17)

and

mmute of

particularly X in

Sur A. Galsworthy's

The 17" March

para 4.

2. Before putting there ppt. up

Should like advice in respect of

in respect of the items

in the tables noted below

world be or are

They say ((s) unusual

As to whether

unique features of

permanent legislation (British)

(by open to objection

principle

as part of the permanent law

am satisfied that in every

on a permanent basis

for there powers h

ん

The needf

Care

can be justipend in the

Special circumstances of Hong Kong.

The items are:-

Table A

I roms I and I

Table B

Items 2,

"','

13.

6-7

3. You may

the

aware

that the

remammą

items in

Table B are

The

Subject of legulation which no under

separate examination,

on which Sur A

Grattan-Bellew has been adoring.

Items I and 9 are Bathily incorporated in

The Commãe Procedure (Amendment) (No.2)

Ordmanu,

1968

comes from dem ce

which The Governor in

вест

being asked to amend.

Items 3,18 and to already form part of

The Public Order Ordinance,

1967;

cartam

are being

stikl

under

underwrable features of this Ordinance

remedied by a

draft- Bill which i Consideration with the Governor.

w.s. Carter

24/4/69

My.

Carter

Hong Kong Dept.

K 246

Reference.

Manute of 24/4/69

119

The following are my comments on the ito s mentioned in your

minute.

Table A.

Item (1), This regulation provides that any person who

posts or distributes any placard, circular or other document

containing any incitement to violence or counselling disobedience

to the law or to any lawful order or likely to lead to any

broach of the peace shall bo guilty of an offence. I do not

know of any United Kingdom statutory provision on similar lines.

Clearly the incitement to violence would seem to be an incitement

to commit a crime and it is an offence at common law to incito a

person to commit a crime. The offence may be com itted at

com on law by publishing the incitement in a newspaper

addrossed to the public in general. It sooms also clear that

a document which is likely to lead to any bro ch of the peace

can reasonably form the basis of a crime. It is not so clour

whether a document counselling disobedience to the law or to any

lawful ordor would be a crime at common law. It seems to me

that in so far as the suggested Hong Kong legislation is

restricted to incitement to violence and, secondly,

to a document likely t lead to a breach of the peace, ΠΟ

reasonable objection would seem to exist.

Item (2). This deals with regulations 50 and 51. In

each regulation the powers which it confers may be exercised if it

appears to the Governor to be necessary or expedient in the

public interest to give the directions mentioned in the

regulation. Thus regulation 50 provides that the Governor may

give directions as respects any particular ship or aircraft etc. that no such ship or aircraft should enter or leave the harbour except with permission granted by him or such other person as may be specified in the directions. I do not know of any statutory

/ precedent

procedent in U.K. legislation in cases where there is no question

of a state of emergency.

Of course in the U.. there are

statutory pow rs to control the entry and departure of ships and

aircraft, but those powers of control rust won factors relating

to safety, etc. and not upon circumstances which are dependent on

the view of an individual that the rostriction is necessary or

expedient in the public interest. I do not think therefore that

wo are likely to find any comparablo United Kingdon legislation.

0 he question of whether, despite this, Hong Kong should

nevertheless proceed to enact comparable legislation, it seems to

mo that a distinction should be drawn betw en two sets of

circumstances.

The first is statutory provision which restricts

or prohibits the entry of ships or aircraft into Hong Kong, and

makes it an offence if a person contravenes the prohibition.

Secondly provisions which confer powers to detain vessels,

Roof board

aircraft and vehicles and persons on board, of those, in particular

I think the Hong Kong Government

the power to detain such persons.

could say reasonably that legislation on the lines of regulation 50

is not objectionable. I think however it would be more difficult

to defend permanent legislation on the lines of regulation 51.

A compromise solution might be legislation to the effect that if a

ship or aircraft entered contrary to the first group of

restrictions (regulation 50) the ship or aircraft could be

arrested, as also any persons on that ship or aircraft, and be

sent out of Hong Kong and in the case of persons, deported from

Hong Kong. The provisions in the existing regulation 51 are

escentially of an emergency nature.

Table B.

Item (2), I do not know of any comparable provision in

United Fngdom law. In this ou try a police officer has power

to question a person to ascertain his name and address if that

information is required by the police officer for the provention

or the detection of crime, Regulation 96, which is the provision)

concerned in this case, requires a person to disclose his correct

name

Reference...

name and ad ress etc., when called upon to do so by, inter alia,

a police offic" acting in the course of his duty.

goes too fare for permanent legislation

I think it

Iten (5)! I would seo no legal objection to permanent

statutory provision on the lines of regulation 119 C.

Items (6) and (7). I think it would be reasonable for

there to be permanent legislation making it an offence for a

person without lawful authority or reasonable excuse to have

in his possession any simulated bomb.

Item (11). The rugulations to which this item refers

empower the Governor to declare buildings or areas to be

"closed arcas" thereby prohibiting acc ss by unauthorised

persons. I do not think that permanent statutory provision

to that effect would be objectionable if it was based on

appropriate purposes, such as, the control of buildings or

aroas in the occupation of Her Majesty's Forces. Another

ground which would be reasonable for the conferment of such power

is if the area is enclosed for the purpose of preventing or

detecting crime.

Item (12).

being made.

I see no legal objection to permanent provision

Item (13).

From the point of view of human rights, I do

not see how permanent legislation controlling the possession

of fireworks can reasonably be said to be objectionable from

the legal anglo.

& H.

Bruchley

(1. H. Cruchley)

28 April 1969

Room 44/4, Downing Strest (cst),

Main B, Ext. 1201

Reference.

(20

Mr. Cruchley.

World

you plse look

and let

at the draft submunion below

it does justice to

know whether

your advice

recorded

mi your

imminte

28th April.

the Easter

Thank

you.

advice

h.5. Gork

ск

12/5/69

It does justice

R. H. Cruckley

14/5/69

Rigs

ام کروا

Plse face the cubmersion.

14/5-

Sir A. {alsworthy

Mr. Moreton

Flage

~A & B

(2)6

Flag C

शह

21/E

Flags D&E

171e

Review of Emergency Legislation: Hong Kong

The Governor has

　　A great deal of emergency legislation introduced in Hong Kong in 1967 was discontinued in the course of 1968. forwarded for information (in two communications) the results of his continuing review of the remaining emergency legislation still in force (including legislation introduced before 1967), together with his plans for dismantling this. These plans have been examined in consultation with legal advisers, with particular reference to the points made by Sir Arthur Galsworthy in paragraph 4 of his minute of 17 March namely, to what extent provisions now being transferred from emergency to permanent legislation would be unusual or unique features of permanent legislation in Colonial territories and whether there is need and justification for their retention in permanent law. 2. The department's conclusion is that the Governor's intentions are in general acceptable. We have, however, a few reservations on some of his proposals: these are being pursued in separate correspondence on the Public Order (Amendment) Bill, which is the subject of a separate submission, and the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (No.2) Ordinance, 1968. And there is one point arising from the correspondence on these papers on which it is recommended

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　A draft is that Sir Arthur Galsworthy writes to the Governor.

attached.

3. Drawing upon the information provided by the Governor, the two attached tables have been prepared showing :

(A) the extent to which those Emergency Regulations which have

been in force in Hong Kong since before 1967 have been or are to be embodied in permanent legislation;

(B)

the extent to which those Emergency Regulations brought into force during 1967 have been or are to be embodied in permanent legislation.

14.

Flag D..

nily

4. Footnotes to these tables indicate to what extent emergency legislation not to be embodied in permanent law will remain in force. The few items concerned fall into two categories :-

(1)

the Emergency (Deportation and Detention) Regulations which have been in force since 1956 and for which there is a continuing need to deal with the problem of aliens whose deportation is impracticable;

(ii) Regulations 29-31, conferring powers of detention, and the ancillary provision of Regulation 37 (Police Supervision Orders) and Regulation 40 (power to detain persons for enquiry) which will be discontinued after the release of the remaining detainees (this month) and the lifting of the Police Supervision Orders imposed on them.

We are moving steadily therefore towards the position of dispensing with the whole corpus of emergency legislation, with the solitary exception of the Regulations at (i) above.

5. To turn now to the emergency legislation embodied or to be embodied in the permanent law and taking Table (A) first, i.e., emergency legislation in force prior to 1967 :-

Regulation 25 provides that any person who posts or distributes

any placard, circular or other document containing any incitement to violence or counselling disobedience to the law or to any lawful

order or likely to lead to any breach of the peace shall be guilty

of an offence. No parallel in U.K. or Colonial permanent

legislation is known. It is an offence at common law to incite a person to commit a crime; it is considered therefore that no reasonable objection can be raised to a provision relating to placards, etc., which incite to violence or are likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Legal advisers feel less sure about the provision extending to placards, etc., which counsel disobedience to the law or to any lawful order. But as we know from experience, attempts to disaffect the police and to persuade the public to defy

/ the law

For

the law and the authority of the Hong Kong Government were among the principal communist tactics during confrontation; and they have not given up auch non-violent means of undermining the authority of the Hong Kong Government. They could at any time reactivate (and if there is no deterrent might well do so) a campaign inciting the police to disobey orders and the public to disregard the law. this reason, I think we must let the Governor retain on a permanent basis as much of this regulation as he considers necessary for dealing with the problem of simmering communist activity, which has been with us since 1950 and is surely going to remain indefinitely.

　　　Regulations 50 and 51 provide for control of the entry and departure of ships and aircraft (Regulation 50) and for the detention of ships, aircraft and vehicles and of the persons in them (Regulation 51)

　　　　　　　　　　　in the public interest. These powers have already been included in the Public Order Ordinance of 1967 (in Sections 34 and 35) and there has been no public criticism, e.g. by "Justice", of the relevant provisions.

In UK legislation powers to control the entry and departure of ships, etc., rest on factors relating to safety, etc.; there is no general power to act "in the public interest". However, in the view of legal advisers, Hong Kong could reasonably say that the wider powers are not objectionable.

Legal advisers consider that permanent legislation conferring powers of detention over ships, aircraft and their occupants would be more difficult to defend and have suggested that the powers should be confined to those of arrest and deportation in circumstances where the restrictions provided for in Regulation 50 (and now in Section 34 of the Public Order Ordinance) have been contravened.

Emergency Regulations 50 and 51 have been in force since 1950 and 1958 respectively. In my view there is ample justification, in the reasons for their introduction and the history of their use, for their continuance indefinitely as part of the permanent legislation. Regulation 50 was introduced to deal with the problem of C.P.G. and Nationalist military aircraft (particularly the latter) landing at Hong Kong in a deliberately provocative and compromising fashion.

In its

In its original form it contained the power to detain ships or aircraft, but not the power to detain persons therein.

　　There have been several instances of foreign military aircraft landing in Hong Kong without permission. In one case in 1956 a Chinese Nationalist Sabre jet fighter landed at Kai Tak; there was a strong C.P.G. reaction. On that occasion doubt was expressed

in the Colonial Office whether the Governor had power under emergency regulations as they then stood to detain the aircraft indefinitely and it was thought that special legislation in Hong Kong might be necessary to put the legal position beyond question; any event the Governor had no power at that time to detain the pilot. We told the Governor in March 1956 that he would be addressed separately on the question of taking powers to facilitate in future the detention of crews of aircraft and ships as well as the vessels

themselves. In July 1956 the Governor was asked to consider making

a comprehensive regulation covering the detention of aircraft, vessels, crews and passengers whenever it appeared to him "to be necessary or expedient in the public interest" to do so. was asked at the same time to consult the Secretary of State before

making use of these powers. Regulation 51 was accordingly made.

In 1958 a Chinese Nationalist bomber landed at Kai Tak without

warning claiming engine trouble. As a result of this case the

Governor stated that he was experiencing considerable difficulty in

using his powers of detention because of the need for prior consultation with the Secretary of State. He accordingly proposed that he should be permitted to exercise those powers first and

inform the Secretary of State immediately that he had done so. This

was agreed.

In view of this history it would be difficult for us to argue that the Governor does not need to retain executive powers of detention in this field. Clearly there are circumstances in which the substitution of a power of arrest might import an unacceptable element of delay regarding the action that needed to be taken.

I consider that these powers would be defensible if challenged and that we should accept their transference to permanent legislation,

/ 6.

Flag E.

12/2

　　Turning next to Table (B) i.e. emergency legislation introduced in 1967. Items (1) and (9), involving amendments to the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, are the subject of separate correspondence with the Governor;

our legal advisers consider that these powers should not be conferred on the courts on a standing basis but could be included in permanent legislation on the basis that the relevant provisions may be brought into force by order of the Governor at the request of the Chief Justice for such periods as the powers may be required.

　　Items (3), (4), (8) and (10) are embodied, or are to be embodied, in the Public Order Ordinance; this has been the subject of a separate submission. Points that arise on this Ordinance are the subject of separate correspondence with the Governor.

8. Of the remaining items no objection is seen in the case of numbers (5), (6), (7), (12) or (13). The following two items have, however, been criticised by legal advisers :-

　　Item (2), Regulation 96: no objection is seen to conferring on military officers "acting in the course of duty" powers to require people to identify themselves; the circumstances in which a military officer's duty would involve him in checking a civilian's credentials are strictly limited and defined, But legal advisers see objection in the application of the words "acting in the course of duty" to police officers. It confers a wider power than is normal, e.g. in this country where it is confined to the performance of the duty to prevent and detect crime. In discussion with the

legal adviser concerned (Mr. Cruchley) he has made the point that the police should be required to justify the use of this power in a specific context and should not have carte blanche to stop members of the public and require them to identify themselves on the vague ground that they were pursuing "their duty". I suggest these considerations might be put to the Governor who should be asked whether there are any special circumstances that might be held to justify the wider power; he should also be asked to let us have a sight of the proposed legislation in draft.

/ Item (11)

these

　　　Item (11), Emergency (Closed Area) Regulations: regulations form part of the Public Order Ordinance. On a point relating to the giving of notice of withdrawal of permits to enter closed areas, the provisions in the Ordinance were criticised by "Justice" and this point has been taken up in the correspondence referred to in paragraphs 2 and 7 above. "Justice" did not, however, question the permanent need for these powers. In fact their memorandum states: "We realise the desirability of the Governor's having a free hand

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Mr. Cruchley has suggested that permanent powers should be limited to closing buildings or areas for specific and appropriate purposes, e.g. military occupation. But the difficulty is that these powers are principally required to maintain the closed area along the frontier; this would not be covered by such a purpose as military occupation (military forces are not always stationed in the closed frontier area which is normally under police control) and I am very doubtful of the political wisdom of openly specifying that the power could be used to close frontier areas in view of the formal attitude China always takes up on the

right of unrestricted access to Hong Kong. In all the circumstances (and since the powers are accepted as necessary by sections in Hong Kong that are usually critical of this type of legislation, e.g. "Justice") I consider that we should not now ask the Governor to

restrict the exercise of these powers on the lines suggested.

9. My conclusion is that we should raise with the Governor only the point on Item (2) which is discussed in paragraph 8 above.

b. 5. Carter ак

(W. S. Carter)

Hong Kong Department

15 May, 1969

Tohorch

1615.

Registry

No. HKK 14/20

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

DRAFT

LETTER

Type 1 +

From

To:-

Top Secret.

Secret.

Confidential Restricted. Unclassified.

PRIVACY MARKING

In Confidence

Flag B.

His Excellency

Sir David Trench, GCMG., MC.,

Government House,

HONG KONG.

Sir A. Galsworthy

Telephone No. & Ext.

Department

Thank you for your letter of 20 February about emergency legislation. We were very glad to have this further review dealing with the Emergency (Principal) Regulations in force before 1967.

As we see it from here, when the steps to repeal or discontinue emergency legislation (as outlined in your letter and in your Saving Despatch No.70) have all been taken the only emergency legislation still in force will be the Emergency (Deportation and Detention) Regulations together with the related Advisory Tribunal rules made thereunder. We appreciate, of course, that these confer powers which you will continue to need.

We have, as you know, raised some points on certain of the items of emergency legislation embodied (or to be embodied) in permanent legislation, in correspondence on the Public Order (Amendment) Bill and the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (No.2) Ordinance 1968. There is one additional point we would wish to make on the proposals set out in your Saving Despatch No.70. This concerns Regulation 96 of the Principal Emergency Regulations requiring members of the public to identify themselves to police officers and military

personnel.

the

No objection is seen to conferring on military officers "acting in the course of duty" permanent powers to require people to identify themselves; circumstances in which a military officer's duty would involve him in checking a civilian's credentials are strictly limited and defined. We are advised, however, that for the purposes of permanent legislation the application to police officers of the words "acting in the course of his duty" goes too far.

/ It confers

(118281) Dd. 391599 1,500 2/69 Hw.

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN

It confers a much wider power than is normal, e.g. in this country where it is confined to the

performance of a police officer's duty to prevent

　　　　and detect crime. We do not know, of course, what your precise intentions are; but if there are special circumstances in Hong Kong that in your view justify the conferment in permanent legislation of a wider power on police officers we should be glad to know what these are. There would be advantage,

I feel sure, in our seeing your proposed legislation

in draft.

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN

Mr. Moreton

Review of Emergency Legislation: Hong Kong

The attached minute by Mr. Carter, dated May 15th, sets out the position very clearly; and I am grateful to him and the Department, and to Mr. Cruchley, for the work they have all put into this question.

I have studied the minute with care; and given the special circumstances of Hong Kong I too support all Mr. Carter's recommendations. But I feel some hesitation in approving this on my own authority without any reference to Ministers since, while I am convinced that what Mr. Carter proposes is right, if there is any criticism of the embodiment of these features in the Colony's permanent legislation it is probable that such criticism would be made in Parliament, and I think Ministers ought therefore to have an opportunity of seeing in advance what it is that we and Hong Kong

propose.

3. As Lord Shepherd is so intimately involved in the affairs of Hong Kong and has taken a keen personal interest in the past in the question of emergency powers in the Colony I think it most desirable that he personally should see these papers. I suggest therefore that you should take this submission with you to Hong Kong at the end of this week, and show it to Lord Shepherd; and subject to his endorsement of our proposals I suggest you should use the draft letter to the Governor and his advisers as a brief for the talks you will be having with them,

On the substance of the point made in the draft letter, I take it that the Legal Advisers' point would be met if, in the case of police officers, some such phrase were used as "acting in the course of his duty to prevent and detect crime"? If that is all that is involved I don't suppose Hong Kong would find this too restrictive for their purposes.

ANG.

(A.N. Galsworthy)

27th May, 1969

مرح

DIO

HAL

7th June 1969

Original a HKK 1/19

I shall have to follow up most of the points which arose here after my return, but in the meantime here is some advance information on one or two subjects.

Suergency Regulations (Brief No. 7) I have discussed with the Attorney General the point made in the draft letter from Arthur Galsworthy to the Governor about the Principal Emergency Regulation No. 96. He accepts the proposed change in the definition of the powers conferred on police officers to require people to identify themselves. As Lord Shepherd had no points to raise on the brief I think that the draft letter could now issue, provided the last paragraph is amended to imply con- firmation of this discussion.

Representations from the local bar

discussed with the Governor, the Chief Justice and the Attorney General along the lines of the brief. The Attorney General vás concerned that Hong Kong had not had copies of all the correspondence and indeed that de Basto was .n direct communication with Lord Shepherd. However on the substance there was agreement that a slightly more forthcoming reply could be sent so as not to exclude the possibility of appointments from the local bar at some time in the future. I enclose a copy of a revised draft which was agreed here, and Lord Shepherd should be asked to sign on his return. It was considered preferable that the letter should not be sent to de Basto from here. the letter has been signed, copies of it and of related correspondence should be sent to the Governor.

Public Order Ordinance Lord Shepherd has agreed to the definition of an offensive weapon desired by the Hong Kong Government.

When

As the question of the Kai Tak extension is more urgent I shall be sending you a telegram about this.

W.8. Carlor Roy,, KIVO,

Foreign & Commonwealth Office.

(Jolla)

nov.

Reference

Flay 62

Flag

Mr. Carter

keview of Emergency Legislation: Hong Kong

The attached submission on the above subject was not seen by Lord Shepherd before he left for Hong Kong. In his minute of 27 May Sir Arthur Galsworthy accord- ingly suggested that Kr. Moreton should take a copy of the submission with him to Hong Kong and show it to Lord Shepherd there. Subject to the Minister's endorse- ment of the proposals in the submission, Sir Arthur suggested that Mr. Moreton should use the draft letter attached to the submission as a brief for the talks

2) which Mr. Moreton planned to have with the Governor

21/€

Flag (23)

ing

and his advisers.

We have now received from Mr. Moreton a letter in which he suggests that the draft letter attached to

the submission should now be sent to the Governor suit- ably modified to take account of the former's discus- sions in the Colony.

3. We have since received Hong Kong telegram No. 481 from which it is clear that the process of dismantling emergency legislation will be taken a considerable step further on 20 June. I have accordingly slightly modi- fied the original draft letter, as advised by Mr. Moreton, and a copy of the modified draft is attached. The modified draft also takes account of Hong Kong telegram No. 481.

(A. W. Gaminara) 18 June 1969

би А. Стольнсову

recommend

that the letter,

As suggested

a mende d

after discussion

by Mr. Noration

with the Attorney General in

Hong Kong (Flay()

should

how

wis

Cartier

19/6/69

ANS 7016

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN

CONFIDENTIAL

Registry No.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

Confidential Revogad Unlauslied.

PRIVACY MARKING

DRAFT letter

To:-

His Excellency

Sir David Trench, G.C.M.G., M.A

Government House, HONG KONG.

Type 1 +

From

Sir Arthur Galsworthy

Telephone No. & Ext.

}

Department

In Confidence

Flag J.

Flags A + B Flag I

it is most encouraging that you felt that you could safely take this

action.

Flag

ANG

2016

We were, as you can imagine, very pleased indeed

to receive your telegram No. 481 about emergency legis-

lation: As we see it from here, when the steps to

repeal or discontinue such legislation (as outlined in

your Saving Despatch No. 70, in your letter of 20

February and in your telegram) have all been taken, the

only emergency legislation still in force will be the

Emergency (Deportation and Detention) Regulations

together with the related Advisory Tribunal Rules made

thereunder.

We have, as you know, raised some points on certain

of the items of emergency legislation embodied (or to

be embodied) in permanent legislation, in correspondence

on the Public Order (Amendment) Bill and the Criminal

Procedure (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance, 1968. There

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　raise with you) is one additional point we would wish to make Jon the

proposals set out in your Saving Despatch No. 70.

concerns Regulation 96 of the Frincipal Emergency Regu-

lations requiring members of the public to identify

themselves to police officers and military personnel.

There is no difficulty about

This

No objection to coon te conferring on military

officers "acting in the course of duty" permanent powers

بة

to require people to identify themselves; the circum-

stances in which/military officer's duty would involve

him in checking a civilian's credentials are strictly

But it has beew pointed met here limited and defined. we are uuvise", however, that for

(115281) Dd. 391599 1,500 2,69 Hw.

/ the

CONFIDENTIAL

the purposes of permanent legislation the application

to police officers of the words "acting in the course

ases Clem &

retter

of his duty" eee/too far.

It confers a much wider

power than is normal, e.g. in this country where it is

confined to the performance of a police officer's duty

to prevent and detect crime. I understand that during

his recent visit to Hong Kong, John Moreton discussed

this point with Denys Roberts and that the latter

disky thinylt that

red that the powers of police officers in this con-

text could without difficulty be modified accordingly.

probleme

We hope therefore that this particular difficulty has

But

you should feel that

been resolved. However, if there are special circum-

which

would

stances in Hong Kong that in your view justify the con-

ferment in permanent legislation of a wider power on

I am sure you would let me kuaj.

police officers, we eneuld be glad to know what these

it would be very helpful if you could are. In the event there would be advantage, I feel

let us see

pure, in our seeing your proposed legislation in draft.

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN

لح

CONFIDENTIAL

Sent

23rd June, 1969.

DO.

　We were, as you can imagine, very pleased indeed to receive your telegram No, 481 about emergency legislation: it is most encouraging that you felt that you could safely take this action.

As we see it from here, when the steps to repeal or discontinue such legislation (as outlined in your Saving Despatch No, 70, in your letter of 20th February and in your telegram) have all been taken, the only emergency legislation still in force will be the Emergency (Deportation and Detention) Regulations together with the related Advisory Tribunal Rules made thereunder.

почет

　We have, as you know, raised some points on certain of the items of emergency legislation embodied (or to be embodied) in permanent legislation, in correspondence on the Public Order (Amendment) Bill and the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance, 1968. There is one additional point we would wish to raise with you on the proposals set out in your Saving Despatch No. 70. This concems Regulation 96 of the Principal Emergency Regulations requiring members of the public to identify themselves to police officers and military personnel.

3. There is no difficulty about conferring on military officers "acting in the course of duty" permanent powers to require people to identify themselves: the circumstances in which a military officer's duty would involve him in checking a civilian's credentials are strictly limited and defined. But it has been pointed out here that for the purposes of permanent legislation the application to police officers of the words "acting in the course of his duty" does seem to go rather too far. It confers a much wider power than is normal, e.g. in this country where it is confined to the performance of a police officer's duty to prevent and detect crime. I understand that during his recent visit to

Ou 15.7.69

(rejse)

Amo

مینا

15/7/0

1$8.69

24,6,

Sir David Trench, GCMG., MC.

CONFIDENTIAL

Hong

*!..

CANDIDENTIAL

(0) (0)

Hong Kong, John Moreton discussed this point with Denys Roberts and that the latter thought that the powers of police officers in this context could without difficulty be modified accordingly, We hope therefore that this particular problem has been resolved. But if you should feel that there are special circumstances in Hong Kong which would justify the conferment in perman ent legislation of a wider power on police officers, I am sure you would let me know. In that event it would be very helpful if you could let us see your proposed legislation in draft, `i·

(A,N. Galsworthy)

CONFIDENTIAL

Vitor

༦༽ས་

अ

HONG KONG GOVERNMENT

NFORMATION SERVICES

DAILY INFORMATION BULLETIN

SUPPLEMENT

Thursday, June 19, 1969

SINJENCY REGULATIONS DISCONTINUED

Twelve more emergency regulations are to be discontinued.

They include

Regulation 31 which empowers the Colonial Secretary to detain people for periods

of up to one year.

The Order to be published in the Government Gazette tomorrow (Friday)

affects the following Regulations :-

Regulation

3- Appointment of competent authority

Definition of "authorised" officer

29(1)- Arrest and Power to detain suspected persons

Arrest of persons suspected of being liable to detention

Power to order detention

40 Further detention after arrest or detention under

Regulation 29

Power to stop and search vehicles etc.

85 - Publicity of orders

100 A

Use of Force in exercise of powers

100 B

Degree of Force

110

Injury to Property

131

Offences by corporations

Commenting on the Order a Government spokesman said, "This action has

been taken following a review which has been carried out over the past year to

ensure that none of the Emergency Regulations are kept in force longer than is

NeceABANY

"lowever, the discontinued regulations could be brought into force

again, should the need arise?" he added.

Release Time: 6 p.m.

MOON

who

نا

U Pe. Bauj

вас

Cha

Emergy

веро

fute & p.b.

27)

then Extract "HK Plandard Salivida__ 21 June 196

A Colony back to nernal

нк

THE need for Emergency Regulation 31, we hope, will never arise again, just as we hope that Hongkong will never have a repetition of the 1967 disturbances. The , repeal of the controversial, highly unsopular regulation, which empowers detention without trial, is confirmation that Hongkong is back to normal.

Tunic will tell whether the Government's belated but wise decision to remove the blot on the Colony's mage will lead to any drastic change for the better in relations with China, but there is this prospect now that all the detainces are released..

Perhaps the visit of Bitam's Lord Shepherd did some good after all. The repeal of the regulation, coming so soon after the British Minister's visit, gives reason to suspect that Lordd Shepherd had something to do with it.

There is also the possibility that the protests by the Reform Club in December 1967 through Labour M.P. John Rankin in the House of Commons, and the fierce attacks on the regulation by the Hongkong Branch of Justice which presented a report for the Minister of Commonwealth and Foreign Affairs, prepared the way for the repeal.

Hongkong did not have a more unwelcome regulation which virtually made every peace-loving citizen of Hongkong a potentul criminal. It is true that because the security of the Colony was threatened, the regulation was necessary. But what rankled many minds was the thought that even when no further threat to security existed, the regulation still existed,

As the chairman of the Bar Association, Mr. Gerald de Basto has said, his first reaction to the repeal WAS il sense of relief. If unfortunate exceptional circumstances force another sel of emergency regulations, legislature should provide safeguards against

of judgment errors

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　part of the administration.

the

Mr. Lee described the men?" he asked. world as "bi polar" world in which only

two powers, the United States and Russia, had the capacity to destroy each other and the rest of mankind.

"It is a problem that has arisen as a result of man's inventivehess and ingenious creative capacity, and leaves the lesser nations with a great problem.

Chango

"It would be togʻlish for us living in the Paci fie not to recognise that moods change.

"The mood of the USA is of global interest with

complete confi- dence. 1has the wealth and technology to in- fuenge the rest of the world.

"But what if the pen- 'dulum swung the other

And this was a m in which Russia/wi increasing its rajfge c nuclear weapony.

"I would like t believe that Ketween th competing forces of th major powers, Singa pore, pyfhaps in consor with its neighbours an Australia and New Zei land, and maybe Japan cựổ find some area i Which there could b relative security withou being fully committe at the drop of the fir Bomb," he said.

Whis is what an national government e any tion must ton about."

Mr. Ley said ever age has its set of pr blems but "qur generi tion is having more tha its fair share of trial and tribulations.

"Historians will te us there were very

The plight of UK's immigrants

THOUSANDS OF Britain's immigrant families are crammed Into single rooms often with eight families to a house, according to a recent British govern- ment survey.

But

increasing number of Immigrants, i anxious to merge into

the British way of life, are buying their own homes, promoting their OWN businesses rising to positions of responsibility in their jobs.

The survey is based on a semiple 10 per cent of immigrants from the "old" Com,

monwealth countries Australia, Canada and New Zealand and Tram the "new Commonwealth which takes in the rest. including the main sources of coloured inmmigrants. India, Pakistan and the West Indies.

The findings are published Aree years after the investigation,

A governmen spokesman explained

"The reason for theṚ time lag is that they things take such a long time to prepare art evaluate. Obviously

can only be a guide- line."

The

survey show's there were $53,000 "new" Commonwealth Immigrants 125,986 of the "old" heré in 1966,

and

The Census dis- closed

Central London is the most popular place to live preferred b 45 per cent of "new" Comungay Inimi-

grants,"

Criche, koverage family has three children or tinder. Only 11,500 *270,000 have

gir amore.

HET MY 20 14/20

Eighty-five per cen the "new" Com monwealth

Jully

employed

only three per-cen were supported by th country.

Many more Indian than Pakistanis West Indians are "whit collar" workers.

West Indians, on the whole, like to work ot buses and trains, mail deliveries.

Pakistanis plek tex Hes: 10,000 in the mills compared with only 5,000 Indians and 2,000 West Indians Engineering is popula with all three.

GLENN GOODIY

CONFIDENTIAL

LACT

REF

CR 12/3231/69

MR. W. S. Copter

ReR

GOVERNMENT HOUSE

HONG KONG

3077

9th July 1969

(25)

Dear Arthur

Thank you for your letter of 23rd June,

1969, about emergency legislation.

The point you make in your paragraph 3 is a valid one, and, as Denys Roberts recently told John Moreton, I see no difficulty in accepting your proposal to modify, for the purposes of incorporation in permanent legislation, the emergency powers of Police officers under Regulation 96, whereby they may require members of the public to identify themselves.

The overall position is not quite as described in your paragraph 1, but may be set out as follows:-

(a)

Repealed

AN 39/70

Sub Fili

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY No. 51 31 JUL 1969

HKK 14/20

(b)

(c)

Rable, Order Cod.

Emergency (Principal) Regulations

incorp Sutter Wordin (i) Regulations 25, 96 and 113 are still

at present in force pending incorpora- tion into permanent legislation, when they will be revoked.

(ii) Regulation 37 is still in force. pending revocation of the above regulations, when it will be dis- continued but not revoked.

Cap 205

Discontinued

LN #2/70

(iii) Regulation 136 is still in force

pending revocation of Regulations troued

25, 96 and 113 and discontinuance of Regulation 37, when it will be discontinued.

LN 53/70

(iv) Regulation 2, which is purely inter-

pretative, remains and will still remain in force.

Emergency (Deportation & Detention Regulations and the related Advisory Tribunal Rules and Forms Order remain in force.

Covered by Pharmacy Vibians (Ag. Parsons) Res 1970

Emergency (Agricultural Poisons) Regulations; Emergency (Exportation )(Miscellaneous

Provisions) Regulations;

Repealed

Emergency (Royal Navy) Police Powers Regulations; and Emergency(Requisition) Regulations

all remain in force for the time being, pending

Sir Arthur Galsworthy, KCMG,

Foreign & Commonwealth Office.

the completion of various pieces of permanent legislation, the enactment of which, while covering many other matters, would also make such provisions as would enable these regulations to be revoked. Of these, the Emergency (Agricultural Poisons) Regulations are likely to be replaced and revoked quite soon: revocation of the remainder may take some time.

I hope this now makes the full position

Yers ever

David.

clear.

5.8.69.

Reference

with (28)

(28)

does not require

reply.

пр

to No. Gammara

of next week @

The

зоря.

Should

be brought

Lú

the const

St-

world

Seem

that

worting

من

we did

at (25)

we overlooked the

minor emergency regulations

al- (c) -

which

were not wichuated in

The

Governor's schedules of emergency

tegulation in force ?

A.5. Carter

31/7/69

2600027 C.S. ZOA

SAVING RACE DESPATCH

　　From the Governor, Hong Kong To the Secretary of State for the

Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs

Repeated to:-

Date

September, 1969.

My Reference.

GR 2/3011/46

Your Reference...

No.

1026

No.

Mr. Creech Jones Circular Savingram of 18th July 1946.

Emergency Legislation

　　　　In accordance with the request in the last paragraph of the savingram under reference, I report below the general position for the six months period from 1st March 1969 to 31st August 1969.

period.

Defence Regulations

No Defence Regulations were enacted or revoked during this

Emergency Regulations

(1) No new Emergency Regulations were enacted during this period.

(2) Amendments

　　　　By the Emergency (Principal) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1969 (L.N. 44/69), the Emergency (Principal) Regulations were amended by inserting in regulation 119A a new paragraph (4) to afford a defence to a person charged with an offence in connexion with a simulated bomb. The provision was contained in regulation 119E which was repealed in consequence of the repeal of regulation 119D.

$4.67

Sab

(3) Discontinuance of Operation

(a) By the Emergency (Principal) Regulations (Discontinuance)

(No. 2) Order 1969 (L.N. 43/69), the operation of the regula- tions of the Emergency (Principal) Regulations specified in the following Table was discontinued:

This does not effect the position as stated

in (28)

DIN

551 12 SEP 1969

WKK 14/20

PA.

17.9

/TABLE

Maskinara

LAST PAPER.

ib/a

Regulation

21.

26.

34.

36.

52.

58.

59.

68.

69.

83.

86.

99.

100.

117.

118.

119.

119C.

120.

124.

125.

126.

132.

133.

134.

135.

TABLE

Subject matter

Wireless telegraphy,etc.

Publications may be prohibited.

Declaration of special areas and duties

of persons therein.

Transfer of persons in custody.

Prohibition as to supply of fuel,

victuals, and necessaries, and the repair of ships and aircraft.

Control of territorial and colonial

waters.

Control of roads and travel by vehicle and temporary control of territorial waters and colonial waters.

Requisition of property other than land. Power to commander property other than land.

Application of Compensation (Defence)

Regulations.

General power to affix notices.

Identification of persons in custody. Powers of entry and search of premises,

places, vehicles, vessels or aircraft.

Offensive weapons.

Consorting with person carrying or having

possession of arms, ammunition, explosive substance or offensive weapon.

Failure to report offence of carrying or

possessing arms, ammunition or explosive substance or offensive weapon

Possession of corrosive substance. Consorting with or harbouring persons wearing unauthorized uniforms, etc.

Certain offences in closed, protected, damaged

or evacuated areas to be punishable with life imprisonment.

Damage or interference with public works or communications.

Power of Governor in Council to proscribe

organization.

Alteration and improper use of licences and

permits.

Attempt to commit an offence to be deemed an

offence.

Liability for offences.

Obtaining possession, where possession is

an offence.

/(b)

(b) By the Emergency (Principal) Regulations (Discontinuance)

(No. 3) Order 1969 (L.N. 83/69), the operation of the regula- tions of the Emergency (Principal) Regulations specified in the following Table was discontinued:

Authorized officers.

Arrest and power to detain suspected

persons.

TABLE

Regulation

Subject matter

Competent authority.

29(1).

30.

31.

40.

66.

85.

100A.

100B.

110.

131.

Arrest of persons suspected of being

liable to detention.

Power to order detention.

Further detention after arrest or

detention under regulation 29.

Power to stop and search vehicles

including railway vehicles and tramways.

Publicity of orders.

General provision as to use of force

in exercise of powers.

Degree of force which may be used and

indemnity.

Injury to property.

Offences by corporations.

(4) Repeals

(a) By the Emergency Regulations (Repeal) (No. 2) Order 1969 (L.N.

45/69), the regulations of the Emergency (Principal) Regulations specified in the following Table were repealed:

Regulation

50.

51.

119D.

119E.

TABLE

Subject matter

Entry and departure of ships and aircraft.

Power to detain vessels, aircraft and

vehicles and persons on board.

Possession of simulated bomb.

Defence in respect of charges under

regulations 119A and 119D.

/Regulations

Regulations 50 and 51 were not required because of similar provisions in the Public Order Ordinance (Chapter 245). Regula- tion 119D was not needed because possession of simulated bombs was made an offence under the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cahpter 228); and regulation 119E was repealed consequentially. The provisions of regulation 119E which provided for defence in respect of charge under regulation 119A have been incorporated in regulation 119A (see paragraph 3(2) above).

(b) By the Emergency (Committee of Review) (Revocation) Rules 1969

(L.N. 84/69) the Emergency (Committee of Review) Rules were, consequential upon the discontinuance of the operation of regulation 31 (power to order detention) of the Emergency (Principal) Regulations, repealed.

8/4/69

OLOS

1.2.1970.

HKK14/20 (1470