|
Human Rights Issues -- January 2000
Legal Aid Chief was suspected to ignore client's right (January 7, 2000) (Article 14 & 26)
Dead Prisoners' Organ for Sale (January 9, 2000)
"Blacklist" Protester banned by Macau (January
10 & 11 2000) (Article 9)
Young Migrant Girls Fight against detention (January 26, 2000) (Article 9)
CFA re-confirmed non-indigenous villagers' election rights (January 27, 2000) (Article 25)
Apple Daily Lost Battle against ICAC (January 29, 2000)
(Article 19)
Legal Aid Chief was suspected to ignore client's right (January 7, 2000) (Article 14 & 26)
Senior Counsel Desmond Keane brought the case in the Court of First Instance
to have judicial review on whether the Director of Legal Aid was abusing his
powers by refusing to allow people to choose lawyers to represent them into
the court case. According to South China Morning Post dated 7 January 2000,
Alan Rawley QC, for Mr. Keane, claimed that it was wrong that the government
officer should be able to say "I don't like your choice of counsel and
you are not having him." Moreover, Mr. Rawley claimed that such action
would make a distrust and mistrust of the system and violate the appearance
of justice if not the reality of justice. Oppositely, clients constitutionally
entitled to have right to pick lawyers and it was particularly importance in
cases involving challenges to the Government in accordance with Article 35 of
the Basic Law. Moreover, such right was stated under article 13 of the Legal
Aid Ordinance.
On the other hand, the Legal Aid Department explained that it assigned different
barrister because the case was not an exceptionally difficult one and it was
not inappropriate to select Mr. Keane, who was a Senior Counsel, represented
the client.
The case was still under hearing.
Dead Prisoners' Organ for Sale (January 9, 2000)
Organs from executed prisoners on the mainland were being offered at up to
$300,000 each to Hong Kong liver transplant patients who traveled to a mainland
hospital. The reason why they were willing to take that risk was that they had
to wait for organ transplants in Hong Kong for a very long time. Many patients
passed away before they received any organs transplant operation. However, doctors
in Hong Kong condemned the practice of using executed prisoners organs were
unethical and they refused the academic exchange invited by mainland doctors
to take parts in the liver transplant operations. Although the Chinese Government
denied this practice in response to the testimony given by Mr. Harry Wu Hongda
before the US House of Representatives. Mr. Wu accused China of harvesting prisoners'
organ for sale. It was believed that there was a "good network" between
the mainland authorities and the hospitals in order to ensure the efficient
and fresh supply of dead prisoners' organ. In addition, medical staff of a hospital
confirmed that there would be a good supply of organs later this month because
it was the practice for mainland authorities to execute prisoners before the
Lunar New Year.
At least five Hong Kong people received liver transplant on the mainland. Two
patients have since died and one was hospitalized for three months after returning
to Hong Kong suffering from injection. The situations of the two others were
unknown.
"Blacklist" Protester banned by Macau (January 10 & 11 2000)
(Article 9)
Ms. Lui Yuk-lion, a member of the April 5th Action Group, was refused by Macau authorities when she tried to enter the enclave with her 10 years old nephew. She was detained by 10 officers and questioned for more than 4 minutes. "They told me I am extremely unwelcome in Macau. The refusal was based on security reasons." She said in South China Morning Post dated 10 January, 2000. Macau legislator Mr Antonio Ng Kuok-cheong said the Government might have received instructions from Beijing to bar dissents. Both Hong Kong Government and Macau Government declined to on individual case. One day later, Macau Police admitted that they made an error when Ms. Lui Yuk-lion was refused to enter Macau on 10 January 2000. They said this event happened, as there was a same name as a person on the blacklist.
The challenge Legal Aid over denial of funding for court fight by Mainland
abode-seekers (January 14, 2000)
Nearly 1700 mainlanders, who claimed that they should benefit from rights established
from the Court of Final Appeal's ruling in January 1999, had a legal plea to
gain the rights to receive legal aid granted from Legal Aid Department.
Legislator and barrister Ms. Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee, for thousands of migrants,
challenged the Director of Legal Aid's refusal to grant legal aid as the interpretation
in June removed those rights. She said that the migrants arrived before the
re-interpretation that their right for receiving legal aid should be protected
and relied on the binding precedent set by the CFA since January 29, 1999. In
South China Morning Post on 14 January, 2000, she said that "that would
be the gravest injustice and it cracked open Hong Kong legal system and common
law system". The most doubtful question raised by her was that why people
who came after January 29 and before the re-interpretation did not receive legal
aid.
On the other hand, Mr. Benjamin Cheung King-man, Deputy Director of Legal Aid,
claimed that the Department refused to grant legal aid to those mainland abode-seekers
in accordance with the ruling of CFA in December 1999.
However, the Department made a U-turn in the second day of hearing and granted
the legal aid those applicants. All appeals against refusals were put on hold
pending the outcome of migrants' court application for a full judicial review.
Solicitor Ms. Pam Baker, for 5,473 migrants, said it would create a more level-playing
field when there was a landmark battle with the Government. She thought that
the Department would delay granting legal aid for political reasons.
Young Migrant Girls Fight against detention (January 26, 2000) (Article 9)
Two young girls among eleven migrants who accused the Government had unlawfully detained them, despite legal aid had been granted for their court battle over the right of abode. After the Court of Appeal ruled that the children at the mainland of Hong Kong residents should have the right of abode, the migrants claimed that they were in the same position as those people who had been released from detention. In an application lodged with the court, their lawyers argued it is "wholly irrational" to detain them while legal proceedings were pending. Contrarily, others in the same position have been released. They would be relying on the same legal submissions to be put forward in the case involving 5,472 migrants due to return to court for a preliminary hearing next month. The eleven migrants claimed that they were in the same position as one of the test cases in that action. They all entered Hong Kong after the Chinese Government's reinterpretation of the Basic Law on 26 June 1999.
CFA re-confirmed non-indigenous villagers' election rights (January 27, 2000) (Article 25)
The Court of Final Appeal re-affirmed yesterday that the village elections in the New Territories were public affairs and the non-indigenous villagers' rights of election and voting were fundamental rights. It concluded that it was an infringement of the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights Ordinance if they were excluded from participation.
Mr. Patrick Chan, High Court Chief Judge, said that whatever the traditional role and function of a village representative had been, it was clear that it now has a much more important public and constitutional role to play. Moreover, the exclusion of the non-indigenous villagers from the electorate was unacceptable. Mr. Chan also commented that the Secretary of Home Affairs should not approve the successful candidate who was returned by means of an election process, which was inconsistent with the law. The court agreed with the appeal court that exclusionary practice towards female violated the Sex Discrimination Ordinance. Mr. Justice Nazareth said that it was "perverse" that the government had argued that the discrimination claim would not have arisen if "favourable treatment" had not been granted to women.
Mr. Chan Wah, 67 and Mr. Tse Kwan-sang launched the judgement, 39, who were prevented from participating into their respective village elections. Such ruling would alter the political fabric of Heung Yee Kuk, which was one of the functional constituencies seated in Legco.
Apple Daily Lost Battle against ICAC (January 29, 2000) (Article 19)
The Court of Final Appeal refused to allow Apple Daily to go any further in its fight to have the materials which were seized by ICAC from its Tseng Kwan O offices on 29 November 1999 as part of investigation into an alleged bribes-for-information racket with police officers. The court lifted an order which had kept the materials sealed pending the final resolution of the case and Apple Daily was ordered to pay costs. Apple Daily argued defects in the search warrants used to seize the materials were invalid. Chief Justice Andrew Li Kwok-nang and Mr. Justice Kemal Bokhary said: "In our judgment the Court of Appeal has clearly come to a correct view of the law. The contrary is not arguable." (South China Morning Post January 29, 2000) Last night, ICAC investigators unsealed the materials, which were seized from Apple Daily offices. The Hong Kong Journalists' Association stated its concern that confidence in the principle of protecting sources would be undermined by the ruling.