The Correctional Services Department today said it strongly disapproved of and condemned Chan Man-mun's article in which he made unfounded and misleading remarks on the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance.

The article titled Retrospective Effect was published in Ming Pao yesterday.

The department noted that the grant of early release has never been a guaranteed right of persons in custody (PICs) under the laws of Hong Kong, whereas PICs should in principle serve the full sentence imposed by the court before they can be released.

It added that the mechanism of granting of remission or early release under the legislation is established to encourage good conduct and industry of PICs.

Any discretion by the Commissioner of Correctional Services to grant early release or any referral of a PIC's case to the relevant board for consideration of early release must be exercised or handled in accordance with the provisions of the relevant laws, such as the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Ordinance, the Post-Release Supervision of Prisoners Ordinance and the Prison Rules.

As regards PICs serving their sentences in respect of their convictions of offences endangering national security, the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance amended corresponding ordinances such that the PIC must not be granted remission or his case must not be referred to the relevant board for consideration of early release or sentence review, unless the commissioner is satisfied that the grant of remission or the early release will not be contrary to the interests of national security.

The new provisions are applicable to all PICs serving sentences in respect of their convictions of offences endangering national security, irrespective of whether they were sentenced before, on or after the commencement of the relevant amendments.

The department also highlighted that the new provisions are not punitive measures; do not increase the length of sentences imposed by the court, nor do they affect those who have already been released early.

Therefore, the new provisions definitely do not engage the provisions under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights against retrospective criminal offences or penalties.

The department emphasised that the two so-called "controversial" points mentioned in the Ming Pao article are factually inaccurate.

First, section 7 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance provides for a clear definition of "offence endangering national security". Therefore, there is no such case as alleged in the article that "the Commissioner decides on his own to expand the scope of offences endangering national security".

Furthermore, the principles established under case law are that the court must not, when sentencing a defendant, consider whether the defendant will be granted remission or early release in accordance with the law.

The department pointed out that the article misled readers to believe that if a PIC is not granted remission or early release in accordance with the law, it would be tantamount to receiving a heavier sentence and a breach of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights through these false remarks.