→
MONDAY, MAY 20, 1985
+SO IF SOME HOT HEAD WERE TO DEMAND A NEW ORDINANCE TO TAKE AWAY RETROSPECTIVELY THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF ALL LEFT-HANDED PEOPLE, IT WOULD HAVE NO CHANCE OF GETTING THROUGH ALL THOSE CHECKS AND BALANCES IN OUR LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.
+AMONG THOSE WITH AN IMPORTANT PART TO PLAY ARE THE LAWYERS IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE WHO HAVE A POWERFUL AND PERSUASIVE INFLUENCE UPON GOVERNMENT POLICY AND UPON THE DRAFTING AND PROMOTION OF
LEGISLATION.
+NO LAWYERS TRAINED IN THE COMMON LAW WOULD BE WILLING TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH A BILL OF THAT KIND. THEY WOULD CERTAINLY ADVISE THAT RETROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION WAS IN GENERAL OBJECTIONABLE. THEY WOULD CERTAINLY ADVISE THAT VESTED RIGHTS COULD NOT LAWFULLY BE TAKEN AWAY WITHOUT PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION. THEY WOULD CERTAINLY ADVISE THAT LEGISLATION THAT DISCRIMINATES ARBITRARILY AGAINST ONE SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY WAS REPREHENSIBLE AND CONTRARY TO INTERNATIONAL LAW.
+SIMILARLY THEIR INFLUENCE WILL ENSURE THAT WHERE INDIVIDUAL * RIGHTS MUST GIVE WAY TO SPECIFIC COMMUNAL NEEDS FOR EXAMPLE, TO
BUILD A NEW ROAD, THE PUBLIC INTEREST OVERRIDES PRIVATE RIGHTS AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE, AND THE FINANCIAL LOSS OF INDIVIDUALS IS AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE COMPENSATED OUT OF THE PUBLIC PURSE, HE SAID.
THE COURTS TOO HAD AN IMPORTANT PART TO PLAY IN SUPERVISING THE EXERCISE OF POWER.
THEY WERE ASTUTE TO PROTECT THE RULE OF LAW.
WHERE LEGISLATION WAS AMBIGUOUS, THEY WOULD INTERPRET IT
IN FAVOUR OF THE PRESERVATION OF EXISTING RIGHTS.
WHERE LEGISLATION EMPOWERED OFFICIALS TO REACH DECISIONS OR TO TAKE ACTION THAT AFFECTED PERSONAL RIGHTS, A PERSON AGGRIEVED HAD THE RIGHT TO ASK THE COURTS TO REVIEW THE MATTER.
SPEAKING OF THE IMPORTANCE TO THE COMMUNITY OF THE RULE OF LAW, MR THOMAS SAID:
J
+SO LONG AS GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS RESPECT ITS SPIRIT, THEN HONG KONG'S REPUTATION AS A FREE AND OPEN SOCIETY WILL CERTAINLY CONTINUE. IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT THAT SOME GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WERE TO TRY TO OVERTHROW ESTABLISHED PERSONAL FREEDOMS, OR TO DISREGARD THE PROVISIONS OF HONG KONG'S. ORDINANCES OR THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS, OR TO CLAIM THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE ARBITRARY POWERS OF INTERFERENCE WITH ACTIVITIES THAT ARE OPPOSED TO THEIR POLICIES, THE RULE OF LAW WOULD BE IN DANGER.
+HONG KONG COULD THEN EXPECT PUBLIC OPINION, THE LEGISLATURE AND EVERY LAWYER TRAINED IN THE COMMON LAW TO STAND UP AND MAKE THE IR ARTICULATE PROTEST.
+ IT WOULD BE UP TO THE PERSONS AFFECTED TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS TO CHALLENGE UNLAWFUL ACTS OF THE EXECUTIVE. IT WOULD BE UP TO HONG KONG'S JUDGES, PROUD OF THE IR ROLE AS INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL GUARDIANS OF THE RULE OF LAW TO EXERCISE THEIR JURISDICTION TO CHECK THE ABUSE OF POWER,+ MR THOMAS SAID.