CONFIDENTIAL
Reference......
MKK 040/53
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY!
23 OCT 1984
1 Mr Wood (Legal Advisers WH 230)
2 Mr Hum
306) please (Hong Kong Department WH 306)]
pass odinect
REGIS "KY
است
INDEX
PA
Action Taken
37
LEGISLATION ON HONG KONG:
1.
PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
Mr Hum's minute of 12 October.
2. The second and third sentences of paragraph 5 of the paper which Mr Hum enclosed are not correct. Subject to the views of Mr Wood, I would suggest a redraft on the following lines:
3.
'Our interpretation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is that diplomats and officials on temporary mission in a country where they are not accredited do not enjoy any immunity, unless they are in transit between their home country and an overseas post where they are attached to a diplomatic mission. We would not regard any person as automatically entitled to privileges and immunities under the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 unless he had been formally notified to us as a member (or the spouse of a member) of a diplomatic mission. In any case of doubt it is for a court to decide whether a person is entitled to diplomatic immunity. [New paragraph]. The Chinese view ....
38
Mr Hum's paper does not specifically discuss privileges as opposed to immunities; perhaps it should. Administrative and technical staff of diplomatic missions enjoy, broadly speaking, 'first arrival' privileges: that is, they may import articles free of duty at the time of first installation. They also enjoy diplomatic rating relief and a number of other exemptions.
4. Perhaps the paper should address itself to the practicalities of conferring immunity on the twenty Chinese supporting staff while they are in London. The Chinese Embassy are law abiding and we very seldom have to write to them about offences committed by their members. But it is necessary to imagine a hypothetical situation in which one of the supporting staff, enjoying immunity, is (for example) stopped for drunken driving and proceeds to inflict grievous bodily harm on the police officer. If a diplomat were to behave in this way, we would almost certainly request his removal even if it was his first offence. Would we be prepared to take similar firm action towards a member of the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group, or would we consider that the damage done to our relations with China over Hong Kong would be unacceptably great? If the person involved in such a hypothetical offence were not entitled to immunity, he could of course be arrested, charged and prosecuted in the normal way.
5. Otherwise I have no comments on Mr Hum's paper, except to say that I cannot read the manuscript addition to paragraph 11.
Jennifradice
JC Radice (Mrs) Protocol Department
273 3557
CODE 18-77
16 October 1984
G/56
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.