MS
copical
ст
May 1991
Ms Barrett Legal Admier's
Are
content with you
ATR land Rin reply pl.? you
Völs
für
Ms Carolyn Martin
Clifford Chance Blackfriars House
19 New Bridge Street London
EC4V 6BY
HKD 304/1
ງ
до
мамото
For
presume
this
ww
43
out under JM's signature
you
sens fur
Re: R v. The Governor of HM Prison, Brixton
to
ден
S
ex parte Osman
In the matter of an Application by Lorrain Esme Osman for Judicial Review
Alan Paul
I have been asked
meto
on his behalf
/to reply to your letter of 1 May. 1991.
Taking your points seriatim, the advice of our Legal Advisers is as follows:
(a) The content of Article 8 in the 1988, 1989 and 1990 texts of the Basic Law is identical in the Chinese texts, which are the only authentic ones. The English translations of the 1988 draft and the 1990 final text are also identical. The English translation of the 1989 draft differs slightly in that it says "those that are inconsistent with" as opposed to "any that contravene". This is a difference of translation only and has no effect on the meaning. It might perhaps have been better to amplify the statement in the last sentence of para 3 of the Affidavit; if Counsel wishes to do so in court, he should explain it as above.
(b) We agree that a series of dots should have been inserted to indicate the omitted words, and that "the" in the second sentence should read "this".
(c) This is surely a matter of typography and we cannot see that it matters either way.
(d) The reference in paragraph 6 of the Affidavit to "paragraph 3 above" should have read "paragraph 4 above". assume this error arose because Treasury solicitors renumbered the paragraphs when the final version was typed up.)
We see no objection to Counsel clarifying any of the above points which he considers need clarifying at the hearing.
(We
REFEREN
J.C.RORMO
A R Paul