RESTRICTED
Copied to Miss vilmshurst
(Leg. Add). For lafo. 29/8
ра
21871 - 1.
HKK 349/1
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY
2 4 MAY 1984
55
PP HONG KONG
GRS 456
RESTRICTED
FM FCO 241645Z MAY 84
TO PRIORITY HONG ONG
TELEGRAM NUMBER 946 OF 24 MAY 1984
INFO PRIORITY PEKING
58) YOUR TELNO 1340: CHINESE VISA OFFICE
DESK OFFICER
INDEX
PA
1. MISS E WILMSHURST, ASSISTANT LEGAL ADVISER, HAS COMMENTED AS
FOLLOWS ON DRAFT BILL IN YOUR TUR·
QUOTE (1) PARAGRAPH 3.IS HONG KONG SATISFIED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF
PARAGRAPH 5 DO NOT ALSO CONSTITUTE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES TO
BE ACCORDED TO THE OFFICE? (I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO CHECK THE
LEGISLATION REFERRED TO). IF PARAGRAPH 5 DOES GIVE ADDITIONAL
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES, IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE
OFFICE WILL ENJOY 'ONLY' WHAT IS ACCORDED IN THE SCHEDULE.
(II) THE QUESTION OF DEPENDENTS IS NOT SATISFACTORILY DEALT WITH
IN THIS PARAGRAPH. DEPENDENTS DO NOT ENJOY BEGIN UNDERLINING ALL
CEASE UNDERLINING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES LISTED IN THE
SCHEDULE. THE ONLY PARAGRAPH WHICH HAS TO APPLY TO DEPENDENTS IN
THE SCHEDULE IS 7, BY VIRTUE OF THE UNDERSTANDING, BUT OF COURSE
HONG KONG CAN APPLY PARAGRAPH 9(1) OF THE SCHEDULE TO THEM TOO IF
THEY SO WISH.
(III) PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE SCHEDULE THE BILL IMPORTS AN
EXCEPTION FROM INVIOLABILITY WHICH IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE
UNDERSTANDING ITSELF · THAT CONSENT SHOULD BE DEEMED IN CASES OF
EMERGENCY. THIS IS USUAL FOR CONSULAR PREMISES, BUT NOT FOR
DIPLOMATIC PREMISES. HOWEVER THE EXCEPTION SHOULD NOT APPEAR
UNLESS IT HAS BEEN AGREED WITH THE CHINESE. WAS ANYTHING SAID
ABOUT THIS IN THE NEGOTIATING PROCESS WHICH COULD JUSTIFY HONG
KONG'S INCLUDING IT IN THEIR LEGISLATION? IF NOT, THE WORDS
AFTER 'INVIOLABLE' SHOULD ALL BE DELETED.
(IV) PARAGRAPH 5, SUB PARAGRAPH (3) IS NOT IN THE UNDERSTANDING
AND, STRICTLY, SHOULD NOT BE IN THE IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION, BUT
IT IS SUCH A STANDARD PROVISION FOR DIPLOMATIC BAGS THAT I SHOULD
NOT THINK THE CHINESE WOULD COMPLAIN IF WE LEFT IT IN.
REG MIRY
Action Taken
see
1
RESTRICTED