Sir Hugh Norman-Walker
KCMG OBE JE
Colonial Secretary HCNG KONG
CONFIDENTIAL
19 December 1972
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
1.
In his letter CR2/1156/50 of 9 November 1965, Sir David Trench gave Hong Kong's reasons for not then wishing this Convention to be extended to Hong Kong. In his reply of 15 March 1966, ir Hilton Foynton agreed to resist any suggestion that the Convention should be extended to the Colony "while present circumstances persist".
2. We have recently had a letter from Mr Percy Grieve, QC, MP, on the subject, enclosing one to him from a Mr Beard. I attach copies of these letters and of Er Royle's interim reply.
Since, according to our papers, 7 years have elapsed since the problem was last considered, it seems time to take another look. I would accordingly be grateful if you would do so. It may be that you will conclude that the reasons given by Sir D Trench are still valid. They depended in part on the unwillingness of the Chinese to accept criminal deportees. Far Eastern Department tell me that they are not certain whether the CPG still maintain this attitude.
3.
If you still do consider that you cannot accept extension of the Convention, you may also have views on how far we should go in giving reasons to Mr Grieve when Mr Royle replies substan- tively to him. You may also like to suggest an answer to the assertion in Mr Beard's letter that the absence of any alternative protection in the Colony is a direct denial of rights freely available in other territories. As our Legal Adviser has pointed out, we should not be led astray, as Mr Beard apparently is, into thinking that the rights cannot exist distinct from the Convention or that they cannot be safeguarded by domestic machinery. The question is of course whether the law of Hong Kong, in the ordinary course of events, accords rights of the
/kind
CONFIDENTIAL