CONFIDENTIAL
010001
MDHOAN 4006
TEST. QUOTE NATIONAL SECURITY UNQUOTE FOR EXAMPLE IS ANOTHER. THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENT ON THIS ISSUE IS SET OUT IN THE CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM OF YOUR ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CHAMBERS DATED
24 JUNE 1987.
8.
AS TO DISCRIMINATION, THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS HAS DEAL WITH THIS POINT IN THE HARDYSIDE CASE (SEE PARA (E) OF THE COMMENTS ON BARENDT'S OPINION OF THE SAME DATE).
WITH REGARD TO THE REFERENCE TO THE JD AND PARA 4 OF THE
NOTED ARE: OPINION, POINTS THAT SHOULD BE
9
a
A)
B)
10.
A)
B)
HOWE
-
THE JD ONLY PROTECTS RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AS PROVIDED BY THE LAWS PREVIOUSLY IN FORCE:
EVEN IF THERE ARE POSSIBILITIES OF AVOIDING THE CONSEQUENCES OF A PAST REFERENCE POINT, THERE COULD BE NO ACCEPTANCE OF AN EXTERNAL CHECK WHICH COULD SURVIVE 1997 SINCE THE PRC IS NOT A PARTY, AND IT IS HARDLY
CONCEIVABLE THAT IT WOULD BE A PARTY, TO THE ICCPR OR THE
OPTIONAL PROTOCOL.
FINALLY
-
THERE IS CONFUSION IN PLACES BETWEEN THE UK AND HONG KONG AS GOVERNMENTS AND LEGISLATOR. (SEE EG LINE 11 OF PARA 3
AND LINE 3 OF PARA 8):
TO WHAT DOES THE ADVICE OF THE FCO REFER (PARA 1)? WE HAVE ADVISED THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT, BUT NOT MR LEE.
YYYY
ΜΑΙΝ
21
MINIMAL
HKD
NNNN
DISTRIBUTION
21
LEGAL ADVISERS
PAGE 3 CONFIDENTIAL