emphasis placed by members on that view would represent a very important contribution to the United Kingdom Government's discussion of the issue in coming months."
The views expressed by the Human Rights Committee give a clear indication that, if the Committee had jurisdiction in an appropriate individual case, might well find the United Kingdom to be in breach of
its obligation to implement the ICPR effectively within the domestic legal system. Presumably, similar views will be expressed by the Committee when it comes to consider the United Kingdom's periodic report on implementation in its dependent territories, including Hong Kong.
No effective implementation in Hong Kong
8.
These considerations have particular force in the circumstances of the present controversy in Hong Kong about film censorship legislation. I am instructed that the United Kingdom. Government has thus far rejected a recommendation made by some members of the Legislative Council to enact
to enact a specific proviso reflecting the restrictions contained in Article 19 paragraph_3_ of the ICPR. In the absence of a specific proviso of this kind, a person aggrieved by film censorship will be able to challenge the censor's decision by way of judicial review only upon the very restricted basis afforded by the existing principles of English administrative law. Provided that the censor has not misdirected himself as to the meaning of the statutory language, or acted unfairly in a procedural sense, or acted so irrationally as to be "Wednesbury unreasonable" (i.e.,
(i.e., made a decision which is "So
outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to
to be decided
decided could have arrived at it":
it": C.C.S.U. V Minister for Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (HL) at p. 410, per Lord Diplock), the censor's decision will be immune from judicial review. In the absence of statutory language, recognising the right to free speech or limiting the censor's powers to
to the
matters specified in Article 19 paragraph 3, the provisions of
Article 19 would at best be an
aid to interpretation of any ambiguity in the legislation
: see e.g., Waddington v
v Miah
6