The Final Court pointed out in its judgment that although the Emergency Law has broad and flexible powers to enact subsidiary laws in cases of emergency or without endangering public security, this power is not unconstitutional and is also subject to effective restrictions, including the law itself , Judicial review, and the restrictions of the Legislative Council’s “pre-determination and then deliberation” procedures must also meet the requirements of the “Basic Law” for “statutory requirements” and “proportionality” requirements.
Regarding the “Prohibition of Face Masking Act”, the Court of Final Judgment mentioned the evidence submitted by the government and pointed out that in early October 2019, the law and order in Hong Kong had already been corrupted, which made the government believe that this situation constitutes the “Emergency Act”. The following refers to endangering public security, and the “Prohibition of Face Masking Act” aims to deal with violence and illegal situations that last for many months.
The CFA stated that the use of masked objects emboldened protesters and their supporters, allowing individual people to abuse their anonymity to avoid legal responsibility and police investigations. What they did made the citizens afraid to go out, block the road and The closure of public transportation facilities has caused serious inconvenience to the general public.
The Final Court held that the court must consider the overall interests of Hong Kong to prevent masked demonstrators from concealing their identities, thinking that they would not be subject to legal sanctions to commit acts that undermine the rule of law, and the interests of those who deter peaceful demonstrations due to violence, and therefore ruled The “Prohibition of Face Masking Act” is a proportional response from the government.
–
