Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation

The regulation contains six sections.[1] Section 1 provides for the citation of the PFCR,[8] and section 2 some definitions.[9]

Section 3 prohibits the use of "any facial covering that is likely to prevent identification" at unlawful and unauthorised assemblies, and public meetings and processions as defined by the Public Order Ordinance (POO).[10] In the POO, the terms “public meeting” and “public procession” have their plain meaning;[11] an assembly is unauthorised under the POO where it is a public meeting or procession not granted permission by the Commissioner of Police,[12] or any other public gathering in contravention of a direction made by the Commissioner in that connection or an order to disperse.[13] Persons who contravene this prohibition are liable on conviction to a fine at level four (HK$25,000)[14] and imprisonment of one year.[15]

Section 4 allows for two defences: first, in the case that a mask was worn with lawful authority, and, second, if worn with a reasonable excuse.[16] Reasonable excuses envisaged include but are not limited to wearing masks for professional reasons, religious reasons, or pre-existing health reasons.[17]

Section 5 provides that a police officer may require a person to remove a face covering in order to identify them.[18] If that person refuses, an offence is committed punishable with a fine at level 3 ($10,000)[19] and imprisonment of 6 months;[20] moreover the police officer may forcibly remove it,[21]

Section 6 requires that any prosecution for any offence created by the PFCR shall not commence more than 12 months after its occurrence.[22]

The Court of First Instance (CFI) ruled that the granting of powers to the Chief Executive in Council on an occasion of public danger by the ERO was unconstitutional, and, therefore, that the entirety of the PFCR was unconstitutional because it was in exercise of those powers.[23] On separate grounds it also declared all the substantive sections of the PFCR excepting that prohibiting the use of masks at an unlawful assembly inconsistent with the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights, and therefore of no effect.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the ERO was in fact constitutional on occasions of public danger, and therefore that the PFCR was not invalid on those grounds.[24] It additionally held that section 3(1)(b) of the PFCR, which prohibited masks at certain "unauthorised assemblies", is proportionate, and therefore valid, but upheld the decision of the CFI that the PFCR is invalid insofar as it prohibits masks at authorised assemblies and meetings.[25]

• Anti-mask law
• Public Order Ordinance
• Chief Executive of Hong Kong
• Emergency Regulations Ordinance