The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has compelled governments around the world to deploy preventive and control measures of unprecedented stringency and scale. In Hong Kong, the Chief Executive-in-Council has invoked extensive powers under Section 8 of the Prevention and Control of Disease Ordinance (Cap 599) and adopted a series of subsidiary regulations in an attempt to control the spread of COVID-19.Such extensive power is subject to judicial scrutiny using a four-stage proportionality inquiry tailored for evaluating whether rights and freedomsderogating laws and measures are consistent with the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap 383). In the context of a public health emergency, it has to be shown that such laws and measures pursue legitimate aims that are required by the "exigencies of the public health situation" 1 and are rationally connected to them. They should also be no more than reasonably necessary to achieve these aims without imposing an unacceptably harsh burden upon the individual.Drawing upon the framework of the proportionality inquiry, we seek to explore the medical and constitutional justifications underlying three of such regulations: compulsory use of face masks, group gatherings ban, and compulsory testing for high-risk groups. Furthermore, we will comment on the potential mandatory use of the "LeaveHomeSafe" application in public facilities for contact tracing purposes, as well as compulsory vaccination for healthcare workers.The use of face masks in public areas has been made compulsory under the Prevention and Control of Disease (Wearing of Mask) Regulation (Cap 599I). Use of face masks in conjunction with other social distancing measures reduces the risk of transmission of coronaviruses. 2 This measure may be more useful in the current pandemic as pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmissions are common. 3 Moreover, several local clusters have been associated with mask-off activities. 4 In contrast with public backlash over wearing masks in other regions, Hong Kong has registered a significantly high level of selfcompliance reaching up to 97%, 5 which is attributed to lessons learnt from 2003 severe acute respiratory
Unreasonable delay in prosecution is widely recognised as a mitigating factor in sentencing. Nevertheless, to date there is only scattered judicial discussion and academic literature on its doctrinal bases in Hong Kong. This article undertakes the task of exploring whether sentencing courts in Hong Kong have crystallised a coherent doctrinal basis or rationale underlying this mitigating factor. A thorough review of the case law reveals four different doctrinal bases, namely fairness, rehabilitation, public interest, and delay per se . These bases, however, rest on shaky doctrinal foundations and cannot withstand analytical scrutiny. Recognising this undesirable state of the law, this article ventures into proposing an alternative doctrinal basis for this mitigating factor, rooted in the constitutional right to be tried without undue delay enshrined in art. 87(2) of the Hong Kong Basic Law and art. 11(2)(c) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. This new basis, we contend, will offer the much-needed coherence to the law.
In Secretary for Justice v Tong Wai Hung [2021] HKCA 404, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal affirmed that the doctrine of joint enterprise, as a matter of statutory construction, is applicable onwards to the offences of unlawful assembly and riot under the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245), and physical presence at the crime scene is not a pre-requisite to establish liability. The Court argued that such an interpretation strikes a balance between public order concerns and the need to avoid the risk of over-charging. This note contends that the Court of Appeal’s decision will risk exposing numerous citizens, who can hardly be said to share culpability comparable to that of the actual and principal perpetrators of unlawful and riotous assemblies, to prosecution and conviction on questionable legal and evidential basis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.