- 7
Indeed some might argue that to fail to insert the proper status is an attempt to detract from the individual's rights; and that, were these particular right: not unenforceable at law, this could not be done without the holder being able to obtain redress in the domestic, and possibly international, courts.
It is true that an important subsidiary purpose of the passport is for use in Immigration control on entry to the U.K. In this context the expression C.U.K.C. and B.D.T.C. are of importance, particularly in relation to the right of abode. Similarly, when considering questions of renvoi, also a right of states under international law, a statement of where the holder has a right of abode is of practical importance; therefore in this connection too a statement that the holder is a B.D.T.C. is relevant.
Legally and logically (and as a matter of common-sense for the law usually is applied common-sense) I have no doubt that in a passport it is appropriate and would be convenient for there to be statements reflecting the position of the holder with regard to the two international questions (protection and renvoi) which may arise in the case of passport holders. So far as the individual's right to protection in concerned (or the state's similar right under international law to assert it) there can, in my opinion, be no argument but that a statement of national status is the appropriate insertion into a passport; that alone gives, in Oppenheim's words, "the outward title of his rights". No doubt, for renvoi and immigration purposes, a statement of where the holder has the right of abode and hence of re-entry would also be an appropriate insertion. Certainly, in my opinion, there is no legal reason to prevent national status and category of citizenship and ind right of abode, all to be stated in the passport.
John Couffith
(John Griffithe Q.C.)
Attorney General of Hong Kong.
8th July 1982.
¿