Like Tree11Likes

Hong Kong's Torture Ordinance ....

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    薄扶林
    Posts
    47,971

    Hong Kong's Torture Ordinance ....

    Learn something new every day ... Hong Kong officials guilty of torturing someone can be imprisoned for life according to this ordinance.


    (1) A public official or person acting in an official capacity, whatever the official's or the person's nationality or citizenship, commits the offence of torture if in Hong Kong or elsewhere the official or the person intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or purported performance of his or her official duties.

    (2) A person not falling within subsection (1), whatever the person's nationality or citizenship, commits the offence of torture if- (Amended L.N. 28 of 2013)


    • (a) in Hong Kong or elsewhere the person intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence of- (Amended L.N. 28 of 2013)
      • (i) a public official; or
        (ii) any other person acting in an official capacity; and

      (b) the official or other person is performing or purporting to perform his or her official duties when he or she instigates the commission of the offence or consents to or acquiesces in it.


    (3) For the purposes of this Ordinance, it is immaterial whether pain or suffering is physical or mental and whether it is caused by an act or an omission.


    (4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section in respect of any conduct of the person to prove that the person had lawful authority, justification or excuse for that conduct.


    (5) For the purposes of this section
    lawful authority, justification or excuse (合法權限、理由或解釋) means-
    • (a) in relation to pain or suffering inflicted in Hong Kong, lawful authority, justification or excuse under the law of Hong Kong;
      (b) in relation to pain or suffering inflicted outside Hong Kong-
      • (i) if it was inflicted by a public official acting under the law of Hong Kong or by a person acting in an official capacity under that law, lawful authority, justification or excuse under that law;
        (ii) in any other case an authority, justification or excuse which is lawful under the law of the place where it is inflicted.


    (6) A person who commits the offence of torture is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.
    (Enacted 1993. Amended L.N. 28 of 2013

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,674

    Doesn't this mean any policeman who assaults a person would be committing torture?


  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    13,099
    Quote Originally Posted by si0001:
    Doesn't this mean any policeman who assaults a person would be committing torture?
    It would have to be "severe" which is not defined.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pearl of the Orient
    Posts
    4,006
    Quote Originally Posted by HowardCoombs:
    It would have to be "severe" which is not defined.
    Would ripping off a guy's goggles and pepper spraying him directly into his eyes from a distance of a few inches be "severe"?

    I think it is.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,674

    I think the "performance of his or her official duties" is a bit vague as well.


  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,452
    Quote Originally Posted by si0001:
    Doesn't this mean any policeman who assaults a person would be committing torture?
    Subject to subsection 4: If he can show that the action was justified he is not guilty of torture. Hitting someone with a baton would probably be justified if used to repell protesters. Hitting a handcuffed suspect with a baton is not justified and thus falls under the torture part.
    HK_Katherine likes this.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    13,099
    Quote Originally Posted by Cwbguy:
    Would ripping off a guy's goggles and pepper spraying him directly into his eyes from a distance of a few inches be "severe"?
    I think a judge would be the one to decide that based on case law.
    I think it is.
    Should we start calling you M'Lord

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Cwbguy:
    Would ripping off a guy's goggles and pepper spraying him directly into his eyes from a distance of a few inches be "severe"?

    I think it is.
    Whilst I'd agree on the severe part, it could probably be argued that it was lawful under the circumstances. Excessive, certainly but unlawful? Not clear cut I'd say.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,452

    Probably wouldn't even be found to be "severe". Pepper spray is the least of the non-lethal weapons. Courts also tend to give the police more leeway in executing their duties, it would be almost impossible for the police to do their job and arrest suspects if the same narrow rules would apply to them.


  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Discovery Bay
    Posts
    5,018

    Don't laws state the maximum sentence?

    This one doesn't seem to say that the punishment is imprisonment for up to life. Or is it implicit that the guy could get off with, say, a $20.00 fine and, say, a two week sentence, suspended by one week, but up to a maximum of life imprisonment?

    ...not sure if I'm making any sense.


Closed Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast