'Lawmakers Also Bound By Legco Rules On Disruptions'

The Department of Justice argued before the Court of Appeal on Tuesday that lawmakers should also be covered by Legco laws that prohibit disturbances during council meetings.

This was stated by the Director of Public Prosecutions, David Leung, who is representing the government in an appeal against the acquittal of former lawmaker, 'Longhair' Leung Kwok-hung, over a contempt of Legco case for snatching documents from an official in 2016.

A magistrates' court had acquitted the League of Social Democrats leader, ruling that provisions against disturbances in the council, which come under Legco’s Powers and Privileges (P&P) Ordinance, are not applicable to members of the house.

But the prosecutor argued that the ordinance is applicable to legislators as well, as the law clearly states that “any person” should fall under the specific sections covering disturbances of council meetings.

However, Longhair's barrister, Margaret Ng, said lawmakers are exempted from the ordinance, so long as their speech and conduct fall within the proceedings of the council and do not constitute an "ordinary criminal offence".

"If an orderly debate is protected [by Legco's legal immunity under the ordinance], one that is disorderly should also be protected, provided you don't punch someone," Ng told the Appeal Court judges.

She said "any disorder in the house can properly be dealt with by the house", referring to the legislature, saying these matters are for Legco instead of the courts to handle.

David Leung, for his part, said the ordinance's objective is to allow legislators to discharge their constitutional duties, and a councillor’s privilege is not absolute, as it shouldn't trump that of his or her colleagues.

But Ng argued that the government's counsel did not have any authority to back up his assertion that lawmakers “disturbing” meetings are also regulated by the ordinance. She said even if lawmakers are indeed subject to this provision, then it would be unconstitutional.

She also pointed out that the city's top court had been adopting a non-intervention principle with regards to the internal workings of the legislature.

The case should have ramifications for seven pro-democracy lawmakers charged with interfering with councillors under the same ordinance, following chaotic scenes during committee meetings last year on the now-withdrawn extradition bill.

Their cases have been adjourned pending the result of this case.