*/
Hong Kong has been engulfed in very serious violence over the past year, following months of increasingly fierce confrontations between revolutionary rioters (who object fiercely to being described as rioters) and the police – culminating, as I write this article, in the shooting of an unarmed demonstrator in circumstances which seem to me to be indefensible.
Hong Kong has one of the most highly developed street demonstration cultures in the world. There are several reasons for this. The city is compact and high density, so that it is easy to convene very large demonstrations, on occasion up to a million people. More significantly, the city has had free speech and freedom of assembly for a long time, but it does not have full democracy. Street demonstrations therefore provide the main outlet for bringing political pressure to bear on the non-elected government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China, whose Chief Executive is appointed by a small circle of Beijing chosen nominators.
The Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Future of Hong Kong, signed by the UK and China in 1984, is a binding international treaty committing China to keep Hong Kong and its non-Communist way of life unchanged until 2047. The Joint Declaration is implemented through the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, often referred to as Hong Kong’s mini constitution. The Basic Law entrenches most internationally recognised human rights, some of which are contained in its text, while others are incorporated by reference by Basic Law Article 39, which provides that Hong Kong shall continue to observe the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as applied to Hong Kong. The ICCPR is applied in Hong Kong by the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, enacted in 1992, five years before the handover to China and the coming into force of the Basic Law.
As a result of these constitutional provisions, freedom of speech, association and assembly are constitutionally protected in Hong Kong. Hong Kong operates a system of constitutional review similar to the United States, Australia and Canada, whereby both ordinary laws and executive acts may be struck down if they are found to be inconsistent with the Basic Law. Judges from the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand sit on Hong Kong’s highest court, the Court of Final Appeal.
This is a reasonably comprehensive system for legal protection of human rights. However, it has one gap which may prove to be its Achilles heel. Before taking a decision on matters which affect the Central People’s Government, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal is required to seek an interpretation of the issue of law before it from the Standing Committee of the Chinese National People’s Congress. This is a rubber stamp body in Beijing which simply carries out the orders of the Beijing government.
For the first 20 years after 1997 this system worked reasonably well, with only a few interpretations by the National People’s Congress (NPC). More recently, however, the system has been eroded by an ‘interpretation’ by the NPC before any reference to it from Hong Kong. This interpretation is to the effect that the requirement that Hong Kong legislators must uphold the Basic Law means that any candidate for election to the Legislative Council who has ever, in the judgment of the returning officer, advocated independence for Hong Kong, is not eligible to be a candidate. This was not previously the law of Hong Kong, and the use of the interpretation to disqualify several elected legislators has massively inflamed tension.
The Basic Law is unusual in containing, in Article 27, a specific right of demonstration, in addition to the more general freedom of assembly. The issue of what this meant in practice came under scrutiny in Yeung May Wan & Ors v HKSAR [2005] 2 HKLRD 212, in which I appeared for the defendants on several charges of pavement obstruction. I argued that the right of demonstration had to include a right to a certain reasonable amount of pavement obstruction otherwise it could never be exercised, and that the law against pavement obstruction had to be ‘read down’ to respect this constitutional right. After a torrid trial in the magistrates’ court this argument was eventually accepted by the Court of Final Appeal and remains the law in Hong Kong today.
It remains to be seen whether Hong Kong’s tradition of legally and constitutionally protected peaceful demonstrations will survive the present crisis.
Paul is a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers and at Gilt Chambers in Hong Kong. He is one of Hong Kong’s leading public law Silks. Paul was the founding chairman of the Bar Human Rights Committee in 1992-1994. His book, Raising Freedom’s Banner, is published by Aristotle Lane Press, £12, ISBN 978-0-9933583-0-2.
Hong Kong has been engulfed in very serious violence over the past year, following months of increasingly fierce confrontations between revolutionary rioters (who object fiercely to being described as rioters) and the police – culminating, as I write this article, in the shooting of an unarmed demonstrator in circumstances which seem to me to be indefensible.
Hong Kong has one of the most highly developed street demonstration cultures in the world. There are several reasons for this. The city is compact and high density, so that it is easy to convene very large demonstrations, on occasion up to a million people. More significantly, the city has had free speech and freedom of assembly for a long time, but it does not have full democracy. Street demonstrations therefore provide the main outlet for bringing political pressure to bear on the non-elected government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China, whose Chief Executive is appointed by a small circle of Beijing chosen nominators.
The Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Future of Hong Kong, signed by the UK and China in 1984, is a binding international treaty committing China to keep Hong Kong and its non-Communist way of life unchanged until 2047. The Joint Declaration is implemented through the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, often referred to as Hong Kong’s mini constitution. The Basic Law entrenches most internationally recognised human rights, some of which are contained in its text, while others are incorporated by reference by Basic Law Article 39, which provides that Hong Kong shall continue to observe the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as applied to Hong Kong. The ICCPR is applied in Hong Kong by the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, enacted in 1992, five years before the handover to China and the coming into force of the Basic Law.
As a result of these constitutional provisions, freedom of speech, association and assembly are constitutionally protected in Hong Kong. Hong Kong operates a system of constitutional review similar to the United States, Australia and Canada, whereby both ordinary laws and executive acts may be struck down if they are found to be inconsistent with the Basic Law. Judges from the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand sit on Hong Kong’s highest court, the Court of Final Appeal.
This is a reasonably comprehensive system for legal protection of human rights. However, it has one gap which may prove to be its Achilles heel. Before taking a decision on matters which affect the Central People’s Government, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal is required to seek an interpretation of the issue of law before it from the Standing Committee of the Chinese National People’s Congress. This is a rubber stamp body in Beijing which simply carries out the orders of the Beijing government.
For the first 20 years after 1997 this system worked reasonably well, with only a few interpretations by the National People’s Congress (NPC). More recently, however, the system has been eroded by an ‘interpretation’ by the NPC before any reference to it from Hong Kong. This interpretation is to the effect that the requirement that Hong Kong legislators must uphold the Basic Law means that any candidate for election to the Legislative Council who has ever, in the judgment of the returning officer, advocated independence for Hong Kong, is not eligible to be a candidate. This was not previously the law of Hong Kong, and the use of the interpretation to disqualify several elected legislators has massively inflamed tension.
The Basic Law is unusual in containing, in Article 27, a specific right of demonstration, in addition to the more general freedom of assembly. The issue of what this meant in practice came under scrutiny in Yeung May Wan & Ors v HKSAR [2005] 2 HKLRD 212, in which I appeared for the defendants on several charges of pavement obstruction. I argued that the right of demonstration had to include a right to a certain reasonable amount of pavement obstruction otherwise it could never be exercised, and that the law against pavement obstruction had to be ‘read down’ to respect this constitutional right. After a torrid trial in the magistrates’ court this argument was eventually accepted by the Court of Final Appeal and remains the law in Hong Kong today.
It remains to be seen whether Hong Kong’s tradition of legally and constitutionally protected peaceful demonstrations will survive the present crisis.
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
The long-running fee-paid judicial pensions saga continues. The current cut-off date for giving notice of election to join FPJPS is 31 March 2024, and that date now gives rise to a serious problem, warns HH John Platt
