TNAG-0909-FCO40-1119-Legislation-for-immigration-into-Hong-Kong-1979 — Page 74

CONFIDENTIAL

HKK 341/3

RELLIVED ME ROGBKY NO. 51 233-443870

9ESK OFFICER

Y

INDEX

PA

GT Barnes Esq

По

28.11

Security Branch

HKK 341/3

Government Secretariat

HONG KONG

27 November 1979

36

IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT)(NO.3) ORDINANCE

1.

(33 35

In my letter of 16 October I gave you the Foreign Office Legal Adviser, Mr Chamberlain's views on the points in para- graph 4 of your letter of 29 August.

2.

The Ministry of Defence (DS5) have now written to me with their views. Although they are very similar to Mr Chamberlain's they have nonetheless asked me to pass them on to you:

"(i) Boarding of British ships on the high seas by RN warships

(paragraph 2a). There is in principle, as Mr Chamberlain says, no problem about this (though one would have thought that its usefulness would be limited in the Hong Kong context). How- ever, the Navy's instructions on the exercise of this right make it clear that HM ships have no power of discipline or command over British merchant vessels on the high seas, and consequently no right of enforcement if the master of a vessel refuses to accept any advice offered to him. Difficulties of this sort are to be reported to the Ministry of Defence to enable the owners of the vessel to be consulted with a view to their issuing direct instructions to the master.

(ii) Vessels without nationality (paragraph 2b). It is clear from Mr Chamberlain's reply that the legal issues here may not always be straightforward. It therefore seems highly likely that we would require clear and authoritative advice in any given instance before the Royal Navy could intervene. (Again the practical value of this suggestion is a little difficult to see, given that the end result of its successful application would be the escorting of an offending vessel into Hong Kong.)

(iii) Prevention by means other than boarding (paragraph 3). We agree entirely that there would be very little in practice that the Royal Navy could do which would not amount to inter- ference with freedom of navigation.

CONFIDENTIAL

/(iv)

37