XN000022-1995-01-13 — Page 3

Statement on Court of Final Appeal

Following is a Government statement on Court of Final Appeal:

"The Government has read with interest the second opinion of Sir William Wade QC in respect of the Court of Final Appeal. We note that it represents a shift from his earlier opinion in 1991.

"On the question of whether the '4+1' composition of the court agreed at the JLG in September 1991 is consistent with the Basic Law, Sir William, having now seen the draft CFA Bill and the statement issued by HMG in November 1994, now considers that -

(a) the use of the word "judges" in the plural in Article 82 of the Basic Law is not conclusive, since it would be natural to use the generic plural so as to leave the number of overseas judges open, to be prescribed by a further law under Article 83, and since the plural need not necessarily mean a plurality on any one occasion; and

(b) Article 82 of the Basic Law, being framed in general terms, is capable of a range of interpretations, from unlimited discretion at one end of the scale to a 'four to one' ratio at the other, and all these interpretations could arguably be said to be in accord with the Basic Law.

In other words, while Sir William would still have preferred a more liberal interpretation, he now accepts that the 4+1 provision in the CFA Bill is arguably consistent with the Basic Law.

"With respect also to the appointment to the CFA of non-permanent Hong Kong judges, Sir William no longer considers the JLG agreement to be in breach of the Basic Law.

"The Government re-iterates its firm belief that the 1991 JLG agreement in respect of the Court of Final Appeal is not in breach of the Joint Declaration or Basic Law."

End/Friday, January 13, 1995