XN000022-1986-05-29 — Page 2

+"-

THURS MAY 1986

J

AG EXPLAINS HOW LEGAL STRUCTURE WILL CHANGE

*****

THE PROGRESSIVE LOCALISATION OF ALL LEGISLATION THAT IS AT PRESENT DERIVED FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM WILL BE ESSENTIAL TO GIVE EFFECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES MENTIONED IN THE SINO- BRITISH JOINT DECLARATION ON HONG KONG, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, MR MICHAEL THOMAS, SAID IN LONDON TODAY (THURSDAY).

SPEAKING AT THE CONTEMPORARY CHINA INSTITUTE OF THE SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL AND AFRICAN STUDIES OF LONDON UNIVERSITY, MR THOMAS SAID THIS LOCALISATION WOULD RESULT IN HONG KONG'S LAWS BEING SELF-STANDING AND NOT DEPENDENT UPON UNITED KINGDOM LEGISLATION BY THE TIME THE TRANSFER OF SOVEREIGNTY TOOK PLACE.

+ IN THAT WAY THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CAN EXPECT TO INHERIT THE LAWS IN FORCE IN HONG KONG IN A FORM THAT WILL NOT CONTRAVENE THE BASIC LAW, HE SAID IN HIS SPEECH ON HONG KONG'S LEGAL SYSTEM AND 1997'.

EXAMPLES OF AREAS IN WHICH HONG KONG MUST LOCALISE ITS OWN LAWS AND CEASE TO RELY UPON UNITED KINGDOM LEGISLATION WERE TO BE FOUND IN THE FIELDS OF MERCHANT SHIPPING, CIVIL AVIATION, PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS.

+THESE SUBJECTS HAVE ALL BEEN MARKED DOWN BY THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT AS MATTERS FOR EARLY CONSIDERATION. I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT A FURTHER SERIES OF REFORMS WILL BE REQUIRED WHEN THE BASIC LAW HAS BEEN PUBLISHED, HE SAID.

MR THOMAS EXPLAINED THAT IT FOLLOWED FROM THE JOINT DECLARATION THAT CHANGES MUST BE MADE TO THE LAWS IN ORDER TO CONSTITUTE A FINAL COURT OF APPEAL, TAKING THE PLACE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL, IN A MANNER THAT WAS CONSISTENT BOTH WITH THE JOINT DECLARATION AND THE BASIC LAW.

HE SAID HE AGREED WITH THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHERS THAT IT WOULD BE DESIRABLE TO ESTABLISH THIS COURT OF APPEAL WELL BEFORE 1997 IN ORDER TO ENSURE A SMOOTH TRANSITION.

+ IT WOULD BE MUCH TO THE ADVANTAGE OF HONG KONG IF ITS JURISPRUDENCE COULD BE ESTABLISHED WELL BEFORE 1997 SO THAT THE AUTHORITY OF ITS JUDGMENTS CAN BE APPRECIATED, ESPECIALLY BY IMPORTANT FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS INTERESTS, AT HOME AND ABROAD.+

MR THOMAS SAID HE CONSIDERED IT IMPERATIVE TO PROMOTE THE

USE OF THE CHINESE LANGUAGE IN LEGISLATION.

THERE HAD BEEN SOME UNEASE EXPRESSED THAT PRODUCING LEGISLATION IN CHINESE AS WELL AS ENGLISH WOULD TEND TO UNDERMINE THE USE OF ENGLISH IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, BUT HIS OWN VIEW WAS THAT THE USE OF ENGLISH IN THE COURTS TO RESOLVE QUESTIONS OF LAW WAS BOUND TO CONTINUE BECAUSE ENGLISH WAS THE LANGUAGE OF THE COMMON LAW. EQUALLY HE WAS SURE THAT CANTONESE WOULD BE USED TO RESOLVE QUESTIONS OF FACT.

/HE WENT