（轉）
*【就特區政府引用國安法第22條展開大規模拘捕行動的聲明】*
超過50名民主派議員、社運人士及律師，因組織及／或參與已延期的2020年立法會換屆選舉前的初選，而被指控觸犯國家安全法第22條下，有關顛覆罪的罪行。我們 － 即下列堅定相信基本法和法治的聯署人 － 以個人名義，對上述事宜表達深切關注。
在星期三(6日)的記者會上，警務處國家安全處高級警司李桂華證實，警方在是次行動中，在獲得搜查令的情況下搜查了72個處所，當中包括一間律師事務所。國安法第22條訂明，構成罪行的基本元素是「以武力、威脅使用武力或者其他非法手段」。然而當局在記者會上未能完滿地解釋，在該次初選並沒有出現任何暴力或非法行為的情況下，他們是基於甚麼原因引用第22條採取拘捕行動。
任何人不論政見均有權參與公共事務，是《公民與政治權利國際公約》第25條確保的權利，亦受《香港人權法案條例》第21條保護。這項權利，對發展民主管治和法治均發揮關鍵的作用。因此，我們強烈譴責任何打壓和平表達《基本法》賦予市民的基本人權的行為。
《約翰奈斯堡關於國家安全、言論自由和獲取信息自由原則》(U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1996/39) 第二條訂明：「一種以國家安全為理由所實行的限制是不合法的，除非其真正的目的和可以 證實的效果是為了保護國家的生存或領土完整免遭武力或武力威脅的侵害， 或者保護其對武力或武力威脅反應的能力，無論這些武力或武力威脅來自外 部，如軍事威脅，還是來自內部，如煽動以暴力推翻政府。」2003年3月，特區政府嘗試按照《基本法》第23條制訂國家安全法時，當時的保安局仍然正面地肯定國家安全立法需符合《約翰奈斯堡原則》。
我們促請特區政府解釋，是否已經放棄《約翰奈斯堡原則》內的適用原則，以及《基本法》訂明保障的基本權利，包括表達和集會的自由。
作為律師，我們同時深切關注搜查律師事務所可能會違反《基本法》第35條訂明法律專業保密的基本權利，即「香港居民有權得到秘密法律諮詢、向法院提起訴訟、選擇律師及時保護自己的合法權益或在法庭上為其代理和獲得司法補救」。我們急切呼籲當局自我約束，確保法律專業保密權得到充份保障，以及全面維護所有香港市民參與政治的權利。
帝理邁
張達明
林洋鋐
蔡頴德
黃耀初
2021年1月7日
【Statement on the Mass Arrest under Article 22 of the National Security Law】
We, the undersigned, as legal practitioners who firmly believe in the Basic Law and the rule of law are deeply concerned that more than 50 pro-democracy lawmakers, activists and lawyers, were arrested yesterday for alleged subversion under Article 22 of The Law of the PRC on Safeguarding National Security in the HKSAR (“NSL”) for organising and/or participating in a primary election for candidates in the 2020 Legislative Council election.
At the press conference on 6 January, Senior Superintendent Steve Li confirmed that the Police had searched 72 premises with a warrant, including a law firm. No satisfactory explanation, however, was given by the authority at the press conference as to why Article 22 of the NSL was invoked in respect of these activities, when that provision expressly requires as an essential element of the offence the use of “force or threat of force or other unlawful means”. The organisation and conduct of the primary election did not involve any violence or other unlawful acts.
The right to participate in public affairs, irrespective of one’s political opinion, is enshrined under Article 25 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and also protected under article 21 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap.383). It also plays a crucial role in the promotion of democratic governance and is fundamental to the rule of law in Hong Kong. Therefore, we strongly oppose and condemn any attempts to suppress peaceful exercise of the fundamental human rights enshrined in the Basic Law.
We note that back in March 2003, when the NSL was introduced, the Security Bureau still acknowledged the need for the national security legislation to be consistent with the Johannesburg Principles. Principle 2 of the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1996/39) provides that “A restriction sought to be justified on the ground of national security is not legitimate unless its genuine purpose and demonstrable effect is to protect a country's existence or its territorial integrity against the use or threat of force, or its capacity to respond to the use or threat of force, whether from an external source, such as a military threat, or an internal source, such as incitement to violent overthrow of the government.”
We call upon the Government to explain whether it has abandoned any due regard to the Johannesburg Principles and the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Basic Law, including the freedom of expression and assembly.
As lawyers, we are further troubled by the search of a law firm, which could violate the fundamental right of residents to legal advice as set out in Article 35 of the Basic Law. We urgently urge the authorities to exercise restraint, to ensure effective protection to legal professional privilege, and to fully uphold the right to political participation for all Hong Kong residents.
CHEUNG T.M. Eric
DALY Mark
LAM Kenneth
TSOI W.T. Michelle
WONG Davyd
Dated this 7 January 2021
legal professional privilege 在 Legal professional privilege - Wikipedia 的相關結果
In common law jurisdictions, legal professional privilege protects all communications between a professional legal adviser and his or her clients from being ... ... <看更多>