CONFIDENTIAL
Kong a solution whereby the Bill makes a reference to the relevant clause of the ICCPR, but without duplicating its wording in the Bill.
(c) The Hong Kong Government have asked whether changes to certain procedural provisions relating to the Crown (remedies) are
necessary to ensure consistency with the Bill. I recommend that we advise Hong Kong that the risk of challenge in the courts is not great, and that it is not necessary to change the law in this respect in order to implement the ICCPR.
I
(d) The present draft of the Bill creates obligations for private persons as well as public authorities and enables individuals to take action against both (third party rights). recommend that we urge Hong Kong to modify this provision with the effect that proceedings under the Bill would be worthwhile only if existing remedies in law were inadequate.
(e) The present draft of the Bill makes an unnecessary and possibly provocative reference to international interpretation. recommend that we advise Hong Kong to delete this.
(£) The present draft contains no provisions about the jurisdiction of the courts in proceedings alleging a violation of the Bill. I recommend that we advise Hong Kong to include appropriate provisions.
I
(g) A decision needs to be taken on wording of an amendment to
the Letters Patent to "entrench" the Bill. I recommend that we
suggest wording which follows closely Article 39 of the Basic Law.
(h) The Hong Kong Government have proposed a two year freeze period after enactment of the Bill of Rights concerning inconsistent
laws (during which those laws can be amended). I recommend that we suggest an alternative (and legally better) way to bring this into effect. I submit a draft telegram. Our Legal Advisers agree.
TOMAVB (2)
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 105Page 106