Professor Richard Cullen presented at Hong Kong National Security Law 1st Anniversary Legal Forum by DOJ - "Comparative National Security Law: Australia and Singapore"

Professor Richard Cullen was honored to make a presentation at the Conference run by the DOJ to mark the first anniversary of the National Security Law.  

                          Hong Kong National Security Law 1^st Anniversary Legal Forum

COMPARATIVE NATIONAL SECURITY LAW: AUSTRALIA AND SINGAPORE

by 

Richard Cullen 

_________________________________ 

INTRODUCTION

Good afternoon distinguished guests and friends

Thank you, Professor Zhu, for the introduction. And thank you to the Department of Justice for asking me to speak at this forum.

In an ideal world, there would be no need for National Security Laws. We live in a wonderful world – but it is far from ideal. We received a stunning reminder of this certainty in Hong Kong in 2019. The insurrection, which grew out of a series of major protest marches, had established traction by early June in that year and it grimly continued for many subsequent months.

In the normal, real world, National Security Laws have been applied in various forms for centuries. The Treason Act, for example, codified the Common Law offence of treason in England in 1351 during the reign of the Plantagenet King, Edward III.

National Security Laws have grown significantly more detailed and complex over time. Context matters. After the 911 attacks in 2001 in America, there was a major lift in National Security legislating around the world – led by the US (though, until last year, there was no such lift in Hong Kong).

Consequently, the scope of the matters to be discussed today is wide. Accordingly, I plan to use my time:

· To summarize key aspects of the Australian National Security Framework;.

· To discuss, briefly, the National Security Framework in Singapore; and

· To consider two relevant case studies illustrating the impact of these National Security regimes.

Click here for more details of the forum.

Michael Jackson on DOJ Secures ‘Joint Enterprise’ Enforcement (Part II) (Boase Cohen & Collins blog)

"DOJ secures ‘joint enterprise’ enforcement (Part II)"
 Michael Jackson
Boase Cohen & Collins blog

Published on 15 April 2021

In Part I, we outlined the recent decision of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal (“HKCA”) in Tong Wai Hung ([2021] HKCA 404) in which the court ruled that the doctrine of “joint criminal enterprise” (as it has been styled by the Court of Final Appeal – hereafter “JCE”) is of general application to all offences in Hong Kong, unless excluded by statute; secondly, and more specifically, that it applies to unlawful assembly and riot, contrary to ss.18 and 19 respectively of the Public Order Ordinance (“POO”); and thirdly, that presence at the scene is not a necessary requirement of joint enterprise liability. In this part, we offer some additional thoughts on Tong, and ask what will actually need to be proved to impose liability for unlawful assembly or riot on parties to a joint enterprise (assuming the correctness of the latter two rulings).

     Presumably consideration is being given to appealing the decision. In the meantime, the following comments are offered by way of critique of the legal analysis and reasoning offered and relied on in Tong and to elaborate its effect, and not to suggest that the social instability which the HKCA addressed in its judgment and perceived by it as a motivating reason for ensuring the doctrine of joint enterprise liability is available in relation to ss.18 and 19, is anything less than a legitimate and pressing concern of the criminal law... Click here to read the full text.