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
expressed by the Committee when it comes to
consider the United Kingdom's periodic report on implementation
in its dependent territories, including Hong Kong.
views will
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 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., 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 be decided could have arrived at 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 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
6
: see e.g., Waddington v Miah