Social News
Written by: Li Huina
2019-11-22 18:15
Last updated: 2019-11-22 18:20The Chief Executive, Mrs Carrie Lam, earlier cited the "Emergency Law" on the grounds of "Hazardous Public Security". The Pan-Members and the "Long Hair" Liang Guoxiong were dissatisfied with the review. The judges of the High Court ruled two laws earlier this week. They were unconstitutional, but they issued an order. The representative of the Department of Justice said yesterday that the appeal will be made, and that the current situation of the society is unstable. I hope that the court can decide the decision of the ruling, but the Pan-min is considered to be chaotic. After the judge considered one night, today (22nd) issued a verdict in the High Court, saying that the government had the opportunity to appeal, so the court suspended the ruling until next Friday.
The judge did not grant a provisional or expiring order applied to the court yesterday. The judge pointed out that the court had suspended the ruling until next Friday because the government had an opportunity to appeal. In other words, if the government appeals, it can directly apply to the Court of Appeal for the relevant order.
The 24 Pan-Members considered that the "Emergency Law" was unconstitutional and proposed a judicial review. (data picture)
The "Emergency Law" gives the chief executive a power that is too large and unconstitutional
In the earlier judgment, the judge pointed out that the "Emergency Law" gave the legislative power to the chief executive to allow the chief executive to establish the main legislation. It is not just a subsidiary legislation. The relevant legislative procedure is completely independent of the law. When the situation arises, the Chief Executive will directly become the legislature, and the functions of the Legislative Council will be greatly weakened.
The judge considers that the scope of the "Emergency Law" is too broad. The circumstances in which it can be cited are both vague and subjective. However, the regulations made are very powerful and the restrictions imposed by the Legislative Council on the Regulations are also limited. Basic Law.
The Limitation of the Masking Act is also more than necessary
For the "Forbidden Mask Act" enacted by the Emergency Law, the judges believe that the "banned mask law" limits the peaceful assembly beyond the need, and violates the right to privacy, freedom of speech, and participation in peaceful assembly; As for the power of the police to ask the public to remove the mask, the judge considered that the "Forbidden Mask Method" did not restrict when the police could use the power. The power exceeded the reasonable need and could not balance the right of the public to be protected.
[Forbidden Mask Method] The government seeks to suspend the court’s decision to make a panic and aggravate
[Forbidden Mask Method] The Attorney General recommends that the court suspend the execution of the ruling
[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 Government hopes that the legislation will remain in force
In the hearing after the ruling, the Government stated that the situation of endangering the public security continued. The court order was still valid, or the court ruling was suspended. It also stated that if the court did not issue the relevant order and decided to declare the relevant law invalid, it would inadvertently encourage The masked person came out to commit the crime.
Pan-people refers to the new law restricting personal freedom
However, the applicant has refuted that the court has ruled that the relevant legislation is unconstitutional. If the law is allowed to continue to be in force, the public will be arrested, detained and prosecuted. It will also threaten the rule of law in Hong Kong because the Ordinance violates personal freedom.
Case No.: HCAL2945, 2949/2019
Forbidden Masked Judicial Review Court