Solicitor General Bob Allcock stresses that the Bill to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law does not provide for 'secret trials'. Any criminal prosecution under the proposed new laws would be subject to normal trial procedures, he says.

"In addition, if anyone were charged with one of the serious offences against national security, he or she would have the right to trial by jury," Mr Allcock added.

Only in the context of appeals against the banning of a local organisation does the possibility of special court procedures arise under the Bill. But such a ban would not be a criminal trial, but an administrative decision by the Secretary for Security.

"It would not directly result in any criminal sanction, such as a fine or imprisonment, but it would mean that the organisation's activities must cease," he said.

The Article 23 Consultation Document suggested that, if a local organisation were banned, it should be possible for points of law to be appealed to the courts, and points of fact to be appealed to an independent tribunal.

The document stresses that confidential material and sources must be protected from disclosure while ensuring procedural fairness. Information which, if disclosed, would reveal the identity or even the existence of an informer inside a violent secessionist organisation, and which would put lives at risk, would be an example of that sort of sensitive information.

The Government now proposes that any appeal against a ban should go to the courts rather than an independent tribunal, Mr Allcock said. "But there is still the need to protect confidential material and sources from disclosure."

To do so, without compromising fairness, the Government would like to adopt procedures that The European Court of Human Rights and Canada use. The UK and Canadian models offer a workable solution for satisfying procedural safeguards under human-rights guarantees while maintaining the confidentiality of security information.

Under the Canadian Immigration Act, people who may engage in espionage or terrorism or otherwise may constitute a danger to security may be barred from entering Canada. Based on security reports, they may be certified as an 'excluded person'.

An appeal procedure allows a senior judge to examine the reports in camera, that is, behind closed doors. Another provision allows an appellant to ask for a review of a removal order based on an 'excluded person' certificate. An in-camera hearing takes place in the appellant's absence. Click here for more details.

Hong Kong's proposed rule-making power is of an exceptional nature, Mr Allcock noted, and its implications need to be fully explored as the Bill goes forward.