Hong Kong government gets more time to prepare case against High Court ruling that mask ban is unconstitutional
- Pro-democracy camp unhappy with delay, says courts should act decisively to overturn face covering prohibition
- Government is appealing against ruling declaring ban invalid, with hearing set for January
The Hong Kong government has obtained a further reprieve until next month over the controversial ban on face masks, which was ruled unconstitutional last week.
A day after government lawyers asked for more time, the High Court on Wednesday extended the period before the invalidation of the ban takes effect.
Acting chief judge of the High Court Jeremy Poon Shiu-chor and Court of Appeal vice-president Johnson Lam Man-hon granted an “interim interim temporary suspension order” and told the parties involved to file submissions before the court makes a further decision on December 10.
Their order was seen by the Post in a letter to 25 pan-democrats who successfully mounted the judicial review of the mask ban introduced to stop protesters from covering their faces in public.
The pro-democracy camp expressed disappointment over Wednesday’s ruling, saying the courts should set aside the anti-mask law decisively.
In a statement, they said the High Court had granted the extension automatically, barring them from raising objections. They also urged the government not to enforce the ban in the meantime.
Last week, the Court of First Instance declared the Emergency Regulations Ordinance incompatible with the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution, when invoked in times of public danger, as seen in the present case. It also declared the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation invalid.
As the government was expected to appeal, the court suspended both declarations for seven days until November 29.
Anti-mask law in Hong Kong ruled unconstitutional by High Court
But justices Anderson Chow Ka-ming and Godfrey Lam Wan-ho warned that the suspension did not amount to giving the government authority to use the law, because the court had found it to be invalid.
Police could still make arrests, but did so at their own risk, they said.
A police spokesman did not give a direct response to whether frontline officers would continue to make arrests, saying the force would carry out its duties in accordance with the court’s order.
A Department of Justice spokesman confirmed on Monday that a notice of appeal had been served to the High Court and the judicial review applicants. The next day, the government applied to extend the suspension.
The Court of Appeal has set aside two days, from January 9, for the appeal to be heard.
The government is expected to challenge the judges’ interpretation of the Basic Law and argue for an executive-led political system, in response to the finding that the ordinance had left the Legislative Council with “a diminished role”.
Court suspends ruling that Hong Kong mask ban unconstitutional
Government counsel were also expected to argue that the judges failed to properly consider that the ban was only a temporary measure until the public danger subsided.
The anti-mask law barred anyone from wearing facial coverings that were likely to conceal a person’s identity during demonstrations when it took effect on October 5.
Those convicted faced up to one year in jail and a HK$25,000 (US$3,187) fine.
The lower court ruling by justices Anderson Chow Ka-ming and Godfrey Lam Wan-ho last week touched a raw nerve with Beijing.
Zang Tiewei, spokesman of the Legislative Affairs Commission of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, said only the Standing Committee, the nation’s top legislative body, had the power to decide whether Hong Kong laws complied with the Basic Law.
The remark prompted critics to express fears that Beijing could issue an interpretation to override the court’s ruling.
Under the Basic Law, Beijing has the right to give an interpretation which is then deemed as final and binding. While this is accepted by the legal fraternity, it is also seen as a measure of last resort, which if used prematurely could weaken the judiciary.
