[Forbidden Mask Method] The government cited two male assaults as examples of public security still threatened to suspend ruling

Social News

Written by: Li Huina

2019-11-21 21:14

The High Court ruled earlier this week that it was unconstitutional to use the "Emergency Law" in the case of "Hazardous Public Security". It also made the "No-face Mask Law" enacted by this law unconstitutional, but the judge did not issue an order on the ruling. The case was now instructed to hear at the High Court. The government's lawyers indicated that they would appeal the ruling and requested the court to order the relevant legislation to remain in force. They also requested that the court ruling be suspended until the appeal ruling, and that the man was set on fire last week. And the incident in which the 70-year-old was thrown by bricks means that Hong Kong is still in a state of public security, but the applicant believes that suspending the case may result in legal confusion. The judge adjourned the ruling.

Yu Ruohai said that the government has decided to appeal the case. (data picture)

+3

+2

Requirement to keep the law still effective to protect the public

Yu Ruohai, a senior barrister representing the government, said that Hong Kong is undoubtedly in danger of being exposed to public security. It is a very special situation. It is believed that the court should declare that the relevant legislation is still valid, thereby protecting the Hong Kong community and maintaining the rule of law in Hong Kong. He pointed out that to practice the rule of law, it is necessary to actually protect the lives and property of the citizens. If the court decides to declare the relevant legislation invalid, it will inadvertently encourage the masked person to commit the crime. Yu also said that since the law came into effect, the number of people involved in violent demonstrations has decreased, and the "Forbidden Mask Method" has indeed been effective.

If the appeal is straight or the public is caught in the risk of illegality

Yu also revealed that he is preparing an appeal document. When the court issues an order, it will formally appeal to the court as soon as possible. He also said that if the Government finally appeals, the people who are now masked in public meetings are still illegal. If the court refuses to suspend the order, it will expose the current masked citizens to the risk of illegality.

[Forbidden Mask Method] High Court ruling new law super reasonable need to ruling "Forbidden Mask Method" unconstitutional

[Forbidden mask method. Interpretation of the Judgment] Harm the public security scope is too broad, the "Emergency Law" is unconstitutional

[Forbidden mask method. Interpretation of the judgment 2] The government has a legitimate purpose and must balance the protection of the citizens.

The applicant stressed that the law has been found to be unconstitutional

Li Zhixi, a senior barrister representing the applicant, countered that the court had ruled that the relevant legislation was unconstitutional. If the law would continue to take effect, it would cause the public to be illegally arrested, detained and prosecuted. It would also threaten the rule of law in Hong Kong because of the violation of the regulations. Personal freedom.

The government can raise the face of the public and still have risks.

Furthermore, whether the relevant legislation is effective or not does not affect the police arresting those involved in riots or illegal assembly. The Government can remind the public that there is still risk in masking before the court has finalized the ruling.

If the suspension of the delay will lead to legal confusion

Li also pointed out that the court can only enact an unconstitutional legislation that is still valid only when there is a vacuum in the law. At present, there is no relevant situation. In addition, if the legislation continues to take effect, the police will be allowed to continue to arrest the masked persons. On the other hand, the arrested persons may be released for the personal protection order in this case. This will lead to confusion in the law.

In response, I repeatedly stressed that there is an urgent situation in Hong Kong. It is necessary for the court to grant an effective order. It also cites the recent death of a 70-year-old man who was killed by a brick attack, and some people were exposed to flammable liquids. The judge finally decided to adjourn the ruling.

Case No.: HCAL2945, 2949/2019

Forbidden Masked Judicial Review Court of Appeal