The five-day riots, arson and widespread looting in England between August 6-10 resulted in five deaths, 16 civilian injuries and 186 police injuries. Property damage amounted to more than 200 million pounds sterling. It all started off with a peaceful march on August 6 following the fatal shooting of a man by a Metropolitan Police firearms officer allegedly acting in self-defense.

The London Metropolitan Police is now launching an investigation (known as Operation Withern) into the cause of the widespread riots. Politicians, the media, sociologists, have all begun to make suggestions on a wide range of causes. These include a slow moral collapse (including moral decay, greed, social irresponsibility), social problems (such as the growing gap between poor and the rich, disenfranchised youth, gang culture and even racial tensions), and poor governance (scrapping of the education maintenance allowance). It also includes economic woes (government cuts, low growth and the highest unemployment rate in decades), and political reasons (poor policing and a breakdown in law and order) as contributing factors leading to the riots.

No doubt debates on whether this was criminal opportunism or just recreational violence will form extremely interesting topics for the criminologists. However, if this was a "black swan" phenomenon in England it is also provides a good lesson for Hong Kong, so that it can prepare itself for a similar outbreak. Hong Kong has a good track record in law and order – and indeed murder cases are big events which create newspaper headlines. However, we should not be complacent.

There are two matters in which the rule of law may be threatened by wide spread violent incidents such as riots. First of all is the adequacy of the present laws in response to riots. Second is the sentencing guidelines for widespread crimes committed during riots.

It is better to prepare earlier for this rather than suffer criticism later on. In Hong Kong we have the Public Order Ordinance which was enacted long before our Bill of Rights Ordinance. Under the Public Order Ordinance, when any person takes part in an assembly which is an unlawful assembly commits a breach of the peace, then the assembly is a riot and the persons assembled are riotously assembled. On conviction of this indictment, he is liable to imprisonment of up to 10 years.

When three or more persons assemble together, conduct themselves in a disorderly, intimidating, insulting or provocative manner intended or likely to cause any person to reasonably fear that the persons so assembled will commit a breach of the peace, or will by such conduct provoke other persons to commit a breach of the peace, they are an unlawful assembly. The minimum benchmark of three persons is strict.

On the other hand, peaceful demonstrations are safeguarded. We have the Basic Law which guarantees freedom of expression under Article 16 of the Bill of Rights. This right carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary (a) for respect of the rights or reputations of others; or (b) for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.

Further, Article 17 of the Bill of Rights guarantees the right of peaceful assembly. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The introduction of the Bill of Rights will no doubt test the validity of the Public Order Ordinance against the requirement of what is necessary in a democratic society. We will need support from both the legal and administrative policy infrastructure to deal with situations such as the London riots. The Public Order Ordinance can only be described as somewhat archaic and calls for reform.

Secondly, we do not have the infrastructure such as the Sentencing Council of England and Wales, which is comprised of judges. Sentencing guidelines were produced for all sentencing courts to follow, unless a court is satisfied it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. At present in Hong Kong, the statutory maximum sentences and sentencing guidelines from the Court of Appeal basically remain our only tool to guide magistracy courts on sentencing. Our magistracy courts in one year have to handle some 40,000 cases where charges were laid.

In England there has been criticism that some sentences were disproportionately harsh on the rioters. An example cited was that of a man, 48, described as an alcoholic, who was arrested for taking a can of Coca Cola and doughnuts from a shop, and ordered to serve 16 months. We should prevent situations like this from happening.

Hong Kong has been taking, and should continue to take, even more initiatives and a proactive role in its own governance. This will guarantee its role be irreplaceable.

The author is a Hong Kong barrister and chairman of the Hong Kong Bar’s Special Committee on Planning and Policy.