CONFIDENTIAL
- 2
since the text of both the Letters Patent and the
Additional Instructions will contain the dates on which
they are signed, it could be rather awkward to show a few
months' gap between the signed date of the Letters Patent
(April 1993) and that of the Additional Instructions
(December 1993?) In the circumstances, we wonder if the
signed Letters Patent should not also be revoked and а
fresh one made, even though the contents of the two will in
fact be identical. We would be grateful for your views on
this.
A
On a separate but related subject, you will recall
that there were some discussions on the validity of the
Hong Kong Letters Patent 1992 and the Hong Kong Additional
Instructions 1992, gazetted last February. Our lawyers
have written to us again and
and have continued to
to express doubts on the legality of the two gazetted instruments. copy of their views is
their views is attached. We think the concern
raised by the AGC is quite valid; would you therefore wish to invite the FCO Legal Advisers to give some further
thoughts to the question and, if necessary, consider possible remedial actions?
wver,
Juus Jeeph
(Joseph YT Lai)
for Secretary for Constitutional Affairs
c.c. Director of Administration
(Attn: Miss Annie Tam)
Attorney General's Chambers
(Attn: Mr James O'Neil
Mrs N. Dissanayake)
VS-212
CONFIDENTIAL
น