My recent article😎😎😎
https://m.orangenews.hk/details?recommendId=138868
Opinion|The Police is duty-bound to enforce the law resolutely
HK Current
2020.10.06 11:05
By Athena Kung
According to the statement made by the US Department of State on 3rd of October 2020 (local time), the arrests made by the Hong Kong Police on 1st of October 2020 were criticized by the Department as malicious ones. It has been alleged by the US Department of State that the Hong Kong Police merely enforces the law for the aim of achieving political goals, which amounts to serious violation of Hong Kong's rule of law and thus strongly attack individual's human rights as well as Hong Kong people's freedom of expression, procession and assembly. The Central Government was commented by the US Department of State as being given up the undertaking of "One country, Two systems" completely. Obviously, such allegations against both the Central Government and HKSAR made by US Government were very serious. To examine whether such comments were fair ones, we have to carefully consider if the allegations really have any valid legal basis or foundation.
According to both the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383, Laws of Hong Kong (hereinafter referred to as "the BORO“) and and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter referred to as the "ICCPR "), the freedoms of expression, procession and assembly were not absolute, and might be subject to restrictions as prescribed by law. Article 16 and 17 of the BORO relates to the freedom of opinion and expression and right of peaceful assembly which can be enjoyed by Hong Kong people:
"Article 16
Freedom of opinion and expression
(1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
(2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
(3) The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph (2) of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary—
(a) for respect of the rights or reputations of others; or
(b) for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
[cf. ICCPR Art. 19]
Article 17
Right of peaceful assembly
The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
[cf. ICCPR Art. 21]"
Thus, freedom of expression, procession and assembly in Hong Kong are not absolute. On the other hand, such rights are subject to restrictions as prescribed by law in the interests of public order, public safety and the interests of others, and so on.
Besides, Section 10(a) to (e) of the Police Force Ordinance, Cap 232, Laws of Hong Kong has clearly stated inter alia that:
"10. The duties of the police force shall be to take lawful measures for—
(a) preserving the public peace;
(b) preventing and detecting crimes and offences;
(c) preventing injury to life and property;
(d) apprehending all persons whom it is lawful to apprehend and for whose apprehension sufficient grounds exists;
(e) regulating processions and assemblies in public places or places of public resort;
…………"
What has really occurred in Hong Kong in various districts on 1st of October 2020?
(1) At around 1400 hours, a group of people gathered and yelled along Great George Street in Causeway Bay, which might have constituted offences related to unauthorised assemblies under the Public Order Ordinance, Cap 245, Laws of Hong Kong and offences related to prohibited group gatherings under the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation, Cap 599G, Laws of Hong Kong. Even though the Police had given multiple warnings at the scene and raised the blue flag requesting participants to leave the scene, at around 1500 hours, a large group of protesters still remained at the same place. Some of them even commenced to chant the slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times” over and over again. Thus, they were suspected of inciting or abetting others to commit acts of secession, which might constitute relevant offences under the HKSAR National Security Law. Afterwards, some protesters even spilled onto the road and breached public peace.
(2) At around 1500 hours, 2 men in the vicinity of Tin Ma Court in Wong Tai Sin hurled some petrol bombs and large objects at Lung Cheung Road. Having attended the scene, the police noticed that traces of the road being charred, as well as fences and traffic cones left on it. After investigation, the Police found that even though a large amount of vehicles were travelling along the road at the time of the incident, fortunately, no vehicle was hit by the petrol bombs and objects successfully. In any event, the rioters’ such heinous acts had severely endangered road users and breached public peace.
(3) The Police intercepted a man at Stewart Road in Wanchai at about 1600 hours and found him in possession of a foldable sharp knife which was at the same size of a business card. The 23-year-old man was subsequently arrested on suspicion of possession of an offensive weapon, as there stood a strong likelihood that he might intend to use the said item to injure members of the public or police officers.
(4) At around 1500 hours, the Police set up a roadblock along a section of the Tuen Mun Road near Summit Terrace in Tsuen Wan to intercept suspicious vehicles, and found extendable sticks, a helmet, face masks and a large amount of promotional leaflets inside a private car with an expired vehicle licence. Some of the leaflets contained slogans suspected of calling for “Hong Kong independence” written on them. The 35-year-old male driver of the car was arrested on suspicion of various offences including “Possession of Instrument Fit for Unlawful Purpose”, “Driving an Unlicenced Vehicle” and “Driving Without Third Party Insurance”.
(5) At around 1630 hours, the Police stopped and searched a man in the vicinity of Tonnochy Road and Lockhart Road in Causeway Bay, and found items including a cutter, a spanner, plastic straps and a pair of gloves in his backpack. The 20-year-old man was subsequently arrested on suspicion of possession of offensive weapons.
(6) After nightfall, protesters continued to gather in different districts. To ensure public safety, the Police have enforced the law resolutely according to the situations arising in different districts. At 2200 hours, not less than 86 persons have been arrested in multiple districts. Among them, 74 persons including four District Councillors were arrested on suspicion of taking part in unauthorised assemblies in Causeway Bay, while the rest were arrested on suspicion of committing offences including possession of offensive weapon, failing to produce proof of identity, possession of forged identity card, disorderly conduct in a public place and driving an unlicenced vehicle. Besides, 20 persons were given fixed penalty notices for suspectedly breaching the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation.
Actually, the Police is duty-bound to enforce the law resolutely. On the facts, all arrests taken place on 1st of October 2020 were absolutely lawful and necessary to maintain law and order in the society and protect the life and property of all Hong Kong residents. Undoubtedly, the US officials have all along been adopting "double standards" in expressing utterly irresponsible remarks on law enforcement actions in the HKSAR. Everyone is equal before the law. So long as there is evidence supporting that someone has violated the law, no matter what his or her status or background is, he or she must face the legal consequence. Being a law enforcement agency, the Police must take action whenever they come across any unlawful acts in strict accordance with the laws in force. All cases must be handled in a fair, just and impartial manner by the Police in accordance with the law, which is the only and real reason as to why the Police arrested the 86 odd people on 1st of October 2020. To conclude, all criticizms made by the US towards the Hong Kong Police, HKSAR Government and Central Government were all unfair without any legal or concrete support at all.
It appears that the US government has always been refusing to accept the truth that the HKSAR is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "the PRC") and a local administrative region which enjoys a high degree of autonomy, as contrary to absolute autonomy, and comes directly under the Central People's Government. Hong Kong affairs are internal matters of the PRC. The system in Hong Kong is not "Two countries, Two systems". Hong Kong will never be an independent country with a pro-American government formed by the Opposition Camp in Hong Kong. Any foreign governments like the US must at once stop scaremongering and interfering in any form in Hong Kong's affairs. The "Colour Revolution" promoted by the US in Hong Kong should be terminated in no time.
The author is Barrister-at-law.
The views don't necessarily reflect those of Orange News.
責編: CK Li
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「district court ordinance」的推薦目錄:
- 關於district court ordinance 在 小小人物做小事 - 高松傑Jacky Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於district court ordinance 在 小小人物做小事 - 高松傑Jacky Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於district court ordinance 在 On8 Channel - 岸仔 頻道 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於district court ordinance 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於district court ordinance 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於district court ordinance 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最讚貼文
district court ordinance 在 小小人物做小事 - 高松傑Jacky Facebook 的最佳解答
My recent article😎😎😎
https://apps.orangenews.hk/app/common/details_html…
Opinion | LegCo Member Ted Hui Chi-fung may be liable for malicious prosecution
HK Current
2020.08.24 16:41
By Athena Kung
In June 2020, Magistrate Lam Tsz Kan sitting in Eastern Court allowed LegCo Member Ted Hui Chi-fung (hereinafter referred to as "Hui") to press ahead with 2 firearm-related counts, including "discharging ammunition with reckless disregard for other's safety" and "dealing with arms in a way likely to injure or endanger other's safety". Maximum sentence for both of the above firearm-related offences is 7 years imprisonment. In addition, another count of shooting with intent which is an offence punishable by life imprisonment was added to the case.
Hui's such legal action was initiated by private prosecution, which was against the police officer who opened fire during a riot in Sai Wan Ho on 11th of November 2019. At common law, like prosecuting authorities, all citizens have the same right to institute proceedings. As time goes by, subject to certain restrictions, private prosecution continues to enjoy a respectable position in modern schemes of criminal justice. In any event, the right of private prosecution is not absolute. A private prosecutor has 2 hurdles to surmount. Firstly, he must persuade a magistrate to issue a summons. Thereafter, so long as he wishes to retain control of the case, he may have to persuade the Department of Justice not to take it over.
When deciding whether to issue a summons, the magistrate who has a discretion should consider at least the following factors:
(1) whether the allegation is of the offence known to law, and if so, whether the essential ingredients of the offence are prima facie present;
(2) that the time limits have been complied with;
(3) that the court has jurisdiction;
(4) whether the informant has the necessary authority to prosecute;
(5) whether the allegation is vexatious.
Once the summons has been issued, like the case initiated by Hui, it is open to the Secretary of Justice to intervene, which may be with a view to continuing or terminating such private prosecution. To prevent the abuse of private prosecution, it is thus necessary to seek to achieve a balance between the citizen's right to prosecute and the responsibility of the Secretary for Justice so as to ensure that unworthy prosecutions do not proceed. Under section 14 of the Magistrates Ordinance, Cap 227, Laws of Hong Kong, the Secretary of Justice enjoys wide power of intervention and "may at any stage of the proceedings before the magistrate intervene and assume the conduct of the proceedings."
What has really happened on the day of incident on 11th of November 2019? According to "The footage of the shooting" which was a broadcast live in the Facebook by a bystander, an officer drew his sidearm in the district of Sai Wan Ho while trying to detain a masked man at a blockaded junction. Then, another masked man attempted to liberate the other, appearing to take a swipe at the officer's pistol before being shot in the midriff. After all, police could successfully detain both men onto the ground. The first man had a pool of blood next to him. His body limped as police officers moved him around. Apparently, the officers tried to tie his hands. The second man appeared to be conscious.
No doubt, according to the above footage, Hui's private prosecution is misconceived. Hui has completely turned a blind eye to the imminent danger confronted by the officer at the particular moment. With ulterior motives, Hui intentionally and wrongfully misled both the court and public by alleging that the police officer's such dedication and discharging his duty to maintain law and order during the riots amounted to abusing of police power and police brutality.
Obviously, Hui's private prosecution should have no prospect whatsoever of success. On the contrary, Hui's such an action even constituted an abuse of prosecution process. Justice can only be achieved by the Secretary of Justice's termination of Hui's private prosecution. It explains why the Department of Justice has applied to the court to intervene the case. A hearing date between 24th to 28th of August 2020 has been applied for the Department's making formal application to terminate the case in open court. Indeed, according to Article 63 of the Basic Law, the Department of Justice shall control criminal prosecutions, free from any interference.
May the police officer wrongfully prosecuted by Hui seek any legal remedy? Historically, the tort of "malicious prosecution" in English law refers to an unreasonable criminal prosecution. All along, malicious prosecution has been generally brought as an aftermath of unsuccessful criminal proceedings.
In Hong Kong, in the decisive authority of Pathak Ravi Dutt v Sanjeev Maheshwari [2015] HKCA 595, the Court of Appeal had summarized that in an action for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove 4 essential elements:
(1) The Plaintiff was prosecuted by the Defendant, that is to say, the law was set in motion against the Plaintiff by the Defendant on a criminal charge ;
(2) The prosecution was determined in the Plaintiff's favour ;
(3) The prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause ; and
(4) The prosecution was malicious.
On the facts of the Hui's private prosecution case, following the intervention of the Department of Justice at the end of August 2020, it will be a case terminated by the Secretary for Justice instead of being ruled by the court with a verdict in favour of the police officer. Thus, it is advisable for the police officer to commence a tort of malicious prosecution action against Hui once the male shot by the police officer has been found guilty by the court. Then, the police officer may rely upon the male's conviction to support the assertion that his shooting under the particular circumstances was necessary and secure his civil claim against Hui.
The author is Barrister-at-law.
The views don't necessarily reflect those of Orange News.
責任編輯:CK Li
編輯:Whon
district court ordinance 在 On8 Channel - 岸仔 頻道 Facebook 的精選貼文
As BNO, 按 The Bill of Rights 1688,係有憲制上的權利直接向英皇請願。本信涉及兩件事一併請願。1.元朗恐襲同2. 警暴涉事英警官。若非BNO或團体可分兩信比英首相 Boris Johnson, 前一信作日己公開樣本,警暴一事樣本明天公開。若分兩信給 Your Queen 亦可,可寫更多詳情(copy the content from letter to PM)。(請廣傳及代貼連登)
..................................................
Wong, Kwok Ngon
(address)
25th July, 2019
Her Majesty The Queen Elizabeth II,
Buckingham Palace
London
SW1A 1AA
Dear Madam,
My name is KN Wong, a British Nationals Overseas (“BNO”) in Hong Kong. In exercise of my constitutional right to petition guaranteed in The Bill of Rights 1688, I would like to submit this petition letter to Your Majesty.
Firstly, I would like to draw Your Majesty’s attention on an organized attack on ordinary citizens in Yuen Long, a district in Hong Kong, at the night of 21st July, 2019. It is now widely alleged to be an act of terrorism. I shall leave the details to your able servants and advisers.
The fact that Your Majesty’s Kingdom is a popular destination of immigration and study among the indigenous villagers in Yuen Long is widely known among HongKongers. It appears that there is a need for Your Majesty’s concern over this matter as both the attackers, the attacked and the organizer(s) may include a significant number of British Subjects and British Nationals Overseas.
I therefore submit that Your Majesty’s exercise of right Royal Prerogative to punish the villains and protect the innocents. I would also like to urge Your Majesty to instruct your Government to make investigations into the “Yuen Long Terrorists Attack”, and based on the findings, repeal or suspend the British Subjects of those involved, including their family members as appropriate, and frozen their property in UK as appropriate. Such investigation may include any British Nationals Overseas (BNO) , if appropriate.
Furthermore, Madam, please be noted a speech by Your Right Honourable MP Helen Goodman in the Parliament on 2n July 2019, asking what Your Majesty’s Government should do to pursue explicit “police brutality” committed by Justin Shave and 2 other two senior police officers. Your Majesty’s Government is concerned as these three officers are British subjects and are known to be responsible for the ordering of a number of incidents of police brutality the crackdown on peaceful demonstrations by students and young persons in Hong Kong, in which there was unjustified, wide use of tear gas, rubber bullets and pepper sprays, and excessive baton attacks on non resisting citizens.
Pursuant to The Statute of International Criminal Court 1998 (ICC, Rome Statute), in which Your Majesty’s Kingdom has been a signatory state, the aforesaid police brutality should be classified as a crime of torture, a crime against humanity that falls within the jurisdiction of the ICC and the Rome Statute. (Art 5(b))
According to Art.7(2)(e) of the ICC, Rome Statue, "torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused. This definition is in line with the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1984.
At the same time, The Laws of Hong Kong (Crimes (Torture) Ordinance, Cap. 427) defines torture as “intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his or her official duties.” Thus, the said police officers in Hong Kong cannot excuse themselves by claiming that they do not know that torture is by itself a crime locally and internationally.
As Your Majesty may be well aware, the ICC has governing jurisdiction on “The State of which the person accused of the crime is a national.” (Art 12(2)(b)) Therefore, ICC has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Justin Shave and any British Subject police officers in Hong Kong for the said police brutality. Your Majesty’s Government, as signatory state, is thus under an international obligation to assist and facilitate all relevant investigations and subsequent prosecutions.
On the other hand, I take this opportunity to urge Your Majesty to clarify one position important to all police officers in Hong Kong who are holders of the British Nationals (Overseas) passport (“BNO”). The Laws of the United Kingdom recognize the British Nationals (Overseas) as a class of British Nationality. I therefore assume that BNO holders are also subject to the jurisdiction of the British Government and the ICC unless those holders had renounced their BNO passports and thus their status of being a British National before the commission of police brutality.
It would be much comforting for all humble BNO holders, including me, if we could be furnished with a reply from Your Majesty at your earliest convenience.
With greatest respect,
KN Wong (Mr.)
LLB, LLM, Mphil, BA Philosophy
A retired law lecturer
Hong Kong ID ....
district court ordinance 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳解答
district court ordinance 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答
district court ordinance 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最讚貼文
district court ordinance 在 Rules of the District Court - HKLII 的相關結果
沒有這個頁面的資訊。 ... <看更多>
district court ordinance 在 DISTRICT COURT ORDINANCE 的相關結果
Notes:This Ordinance consolidates, as at 31 December 1972, provisions which previously appeared in the following Ordinances (1) District Court Ordinance ... ... <看更多>
district court ordinance 在 Cap. 336 District Court Ordinance - Hong Kong e-Legislation 的相關結果
To establish a court, having limited civil and criminal jurisdiction, to be known as the District Court, and to make provision for the ... ... <看更多>