Reference.......
19
Mr. Rushford
You asked me to look at this matter and let you
have my comments on the points raised by Mr. Gaminara.
2.
Paragraph 14. No reference has been made to the
arguments put forward by the parties in this action.
Briefly, R.T.V. claimed that the proposed legislation
would be ultra vires, while the Hong Kong Government
replied that even if it were, that it did not make it
unlawful for the Legislative Council to adopt and pass
the proposed Bill and present it to the Governor for his
assent. The Supreme Court and the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council upheld the Hong Kong Government's
argument, and R.T.V.'s claim was struck out. However,
if the Bill is enacted, this would not preclude R.T.V.
from alleging that any of its provisions were ultra vires
and therefore void and inoperative. I do not know
which particular provisions R.T.V. in fact consider
to be ultra vires, but their claim was made "having
regard to the terms of section 27 of the United Kingdom
Copyright Act 1911 and of section 31(3) of the United
Kingdom Copyright Act 1956". However, as far as I can
see, the only provisions of the Bill which can be attacked
on the basis of those sections are, as Mr. Oxley
pointed out at (48) on HWB 16/6(1968-69), sections 4(2)
and 4(4) and I understand that these objections are to
be met:
(a) by limiting section 4(2) Broadcasts made from a
place in Hong Kong;
(b) by omitting clause 4(4).
Accordingly, it must be considered unnecessary in
paragraph 14 to make any reference to the "ultra vires"
/argument
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.