CO129-594-7 Proposed legislation to regularise registration of births- marriages and deaths in Stanley internment camp during... 16-10-1945 - 19-12-1946 — Page 19

AG

MING KONG NO. 265.

sir,

16

Colonial Office,

Downing Street,

19

December, 1946.

19

GOVERNOR

⚫ I have the honour to refer to your confidentiel despatch of the 26th September on the subject of the validity of marriages solemnized and decrees of divorce pronounced by the Chief Justice during the period of the Japanese occupation of the Colony, and to enclose a note on these matters by my Legal Adviser.

2. As you will see from the enclosed note, there is good ground for holding that the marriages concerned are valid at common law without any further action. I agree, however, that it is desirable to enact legislation to remove all doubts and I approve the draft Ordinance enclosed with your despatch, subject to the following observations:-

3.

(a) The concluding three lines of clause 2 of the draft Ordinance, which provides that no marriage shall be rendered valid where either of the parties concerned has subsequently inter-married with any other person, would seem to assume that a person married in the Camp waB justified in disregarding the marriage, and at this point the draft Ordinance, since it is designed to remove doubt and confirm the validity of marriages, seems to approach the legalisation of bigamy. At present I am disposed to think that the words in question should be deleted. my view, however, it is very important that every individual a fected should be told in general terms of the proposal to introduce legislation to validate these Marriages and given an opportunity to make representations before the Ordinance is passed. Then this has been done, it should be possible to say whether this saving provision would have any practical effect.

(b)

In

The Home office not infrequently issue provisional orders, which are confirmed by Farliament, validating marriages, the validity of which is doubtful. I enclose a copy of one of these orders for your information. You will observe that the names of the parties to the marriage are not included in the schedule, and I would suggest for your consideration that the Hong Kong draft Ordinance should be amended so as to follow the Home Office practice.

Turning to the question of divorce decrees, as you will see from the enclosed note, my Legal Advisers agree that there is considerable doubt whether the Chief Justice possessed jurisdiction. They see objection, however, to the proposal that decrees made absolute by the chief Justice should be regarded as void and that no action should be taken to validate them, if any of the parties concerned have subsequently remarried, particularly if they have had children. If the decrees absolute were void, such children would not be legitimate and, according

/to

SIR MASK YOURG, G.0.R.G.

etc., etc., etc.

}