1450
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 May 1988
likelihood that we could very well be caught in the cross-fire of external political propaganda. I believe I am reflecting the feeling of the community here, notwithstanding our very clear desire to preserve freedom of expression. I do not believe Mr. YEUNG's amendments put that in jeopardy, neither does it contravene article 19.
Before I close, I would like to refer to Mr. LAI's comment about the legal profession's representation. I do not doubt whatsoever their sincerity in putting forward the representation in the hope of preserving the freedom of expression, but I would like to repeat that I do not believe that Mr. YEUNG's amendment puts in jeopardy that freedom of expression. I also do not believe that we need to abide by every opinion put forward by the legal profession. We are legislators here and we need to consider all views put forward.
I have no reservation in supporting Mr. YEUNG's amendment.
MR. DESMOND LEE: Sir, if and when we pass the piece of legislation, we must be reasonably sure that this legislation will work. A formulation which may lead to substantially different interpretations will not be too effective a legislation because this is unlikely to work properly. Taking into account' means to consider or to have regard to. Different people may arrive at different conclusions. The other formulation, namely the compliance formulation, conveys a much more precise meaning. It means that article 19 of the covenant should be followed and freedom of expression will be protected. I would, therefore, support this latter version. In the event that this version is rejected, I would, like the hon. SZETO Wah, abstain from further voting on this Bill.
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, in his speech Mr. Martin LEE has raised some legal issues that I would like to address. I limit myself to the issues that flow from Mr. LEE's proposed amendments as contained in the Order Paper.
Before proceeding to deal with Mr. Martin LEE's proposed amendment I would like to say a little about judicial review a concept that has been much talked about this afternoon. Judicial review is a procedure that enables the courts to supervise the executive in the exercise of its powers. Under this procedure, an aggrieved person may challenge a decision by a public officer, but only on limited grounds. If the court is satisfied that the person making the decision has made an error of law, or that the correct decision-making procedure has not been followed, or that he has acted irrationally, the court will strike down that decision. This latter ground needs some explanation. In considering the discretion exercised by the public officer, the court will not interfere if the decision made by that person was one that was open to him. In other words, if more than one view were possible, the court will not interfere: it will not as Mr. Martin LEE has explained, substitute its own view for his decision. If, however, the decision reached was one which on reasonable person could possibly have reached, the court will intervene and strike it down.