- 8
In all these circumstances, I urge all members to have the courage to support the 4+1 composition, regardless of what their positions may have been in 1991.
As I mentioned earlier, there are three categories of proposed amendments that are related to opposition to the 4+1 composition. They are all inconsistent with the JLG agreement, and they are all undesirable for other reasons, which I shall expand when we are in committee.
In urging Members to defeat these amendments, I am asking you to act in the best interests of the community. How can it benefit the community to wreck the Sino- British arrangements for the establishment of the Court of Final Appeal? How can it benefit the community to prolong the uncertainty over the nature of the court that will be established? How can it benefit the community to jeopardise the rule of law at the time of the transfer of sovereignty? I urge you all, in the interests of Hong Kong, to reject these wrecking amendments.
Other amendments
Mr President, other amendments are to be moved to this Bill by non-official members of this Council that are not inconsistent with the JLG agreement. The Administration has considered all of these very carefully and I regret to say that it is unable to support any of them.
Some of the proposed amendments add nothing to the Bill in terms of its legal effect and are therefore legally unnecessary. Others would make fundamental changes to the system of appeals that currently applies in respect of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The proposals to abolish appeals as of right in civil cases, and to allow a leapfrogging procedure in respect of civil cases, both fall into this category. The Administration has been at pains to model the jurisdiction and powers of the Court of Final Appeal on those of the Privy Council. This has the huge advantage of continuity the retention of a system with which practitioners and litigants are familiar. We oppose proposals that would introduce significant changes to the system.
-
Page 20Page 21