CONCLUSION
12
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1994
IN
DESCRIBED
MEMBERS
THE POLICIES CONCLUSION, WE SHALL ENERGETICALLY CARRY OUT
WE WILL ALSO LOOK VERY IN THE GOVERNOR'S POLICY ADDRESS.
AT AREAS WHERE
HAVE MADE SUGGESTIONS FOR CAREFULLY IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGE. THE END RESULT OF OUR JOINT ENDEAVOURS WILL I
STRENGTH FROM
TO STRENGTH AM SURE
THAT GOES BE A HONG KONG
AND COMPETITIVE
EFFICIENT, AND WILLING TO PLOUGH BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY SOME OF THE FRUITS OF OUR SUCCESS IN ORDER TO HELP THE FORTUNATE.
LESS
MR PRESIDENT, WITH THESE REMARKS, I SUPPORT THE MOTION.
VIEWS OF LEGAL PROFESSION ON DRAFT CFA BILL TO BE SOUGHT SOON
THE GOVERNMENT WILL BEGIN VERY SOON TO SEEK COMMENTS FROM THE LEGAL PROFESSION ON THE DRAFT BILL ON THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE HON JEREMY MATHEWS SAID IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY (WEDNESDAY).
t
SPEAKING AT THE RESUMED DEBATE ON THE MOTION OF THANKS, MR MATHEWS SAID THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD THEN AIM TO INTRODUCE THE DRAFT BILL INTO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL EARLY IN 1995, WITH A VIEW ΤΟ ITS BEING ENACTED BY THE END OF THIS SESSION.
MR MATHEWS SALD HE KNEW THAT SOME LEGCO MEMBERS REMAINED OPPOSED TO THE 1991 JOINT LIAISON GROUP AGREEMENT.
"TO
THEM, I WOULD SAY THAT WE NOW HAVE A VERY CLEAR AND STARK CHOICE: TO SET UP A COURT OF FINAL APPEAL BEFORE 1997 ON THE BASIS OF THE 1991 AGREEMENT, OR NOT TO HAVE ONE UNTIL AFTER 1997," HE SAID.
"I
AM IN NO DOUBT WHICH OF THESE WOULD BE MORE IN HONG KONG'S INTERESTS. THE 1991 AGREEMENT MAY NOT BE PERFECT, BUT NO ONE CAN BE SURE THAT WE WILL GET A BETTER ONE AFTER 1997, HE ADDED.
*
MR MATHEWS SAID THE LACK OF ANY FINAL AVENUE OF APPEAL FOR PERHAPS TWO YEARS WOULD HAVE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES.
HE SAID: "PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE UNABLE TO CHALLENGE DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, EVEN IF THEY MAY HAVE SUFFERED A GRAVE INJUSTICE OR IF A QUESTION OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE WAS INVOLVED.
"THE LEGAL SYSTEM WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF DECISIONS OF THE HIGHEST JUDICIAL AUTHORITY; DECISIONS THAT ARE VITAL TO THE EVOLUTION OF JURISPRUDENCE FOR HONG KONG.'
MR MATHEWS SAID THIS JURISPRUDENCE WAS NOT A MATTER OF ACADEMIC
INTEREST.
/HE SAID