TNAG-1577-FCO40-2150-Hong-Kong-Court-of-Final-Appeal-1986 — Page 11

GRS 380

CONFIDENTIRAL

FM HONG KONG

TO PRIORITY FCO

TELNO 1236

CONFIDENTIAL

TOP

Htin 370/3 нни

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY

3 0 APR 1986.

DESK OFFICER INDEX

PA

REGISTRY Action Taken

OF 250345Z APRIL 86

#NFO PRIORITY PEKING

HONG KONG AGREEMENT: JOINT DECLARATION : COURT OF FINAL APPEAL

1. NOW THAT THE BASIC LAW DRAFTING COMMITTEE IS GETTING DOWN TO WORK ON SUBSTANCE ATTENTION IS LINKELY SOON TO FOCUS ON WHETHER THE **COURT OF FINAL APPEAL** REFERRED TO IN PART 3 OF ANNEX

## OF THE JOINT DECLARATION SHOULD BE THE EXISTING HONG KONG COURT

OF APPEAL OR WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL SUPERIOR TO IT.

2. #BELIEVE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE JUDICIARY SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO TAKE THE LEAD IN COMING TO A VIEW ON THIS, (IN CONSULTATION OF COURSE WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CHAMERS HERE, AND THE RUNNING SHOULD NOT BE LEFT ENTIRELY TO THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ON THE BLDC. ## HAVE THEREFORE ASKED THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO START THINKING ABOUT IT AND HAVE UNDERTAKEN TO WRITE HIM A LETTER SUGGESTING THAT HE SHOULD NOW GAVE CONSIDERATION TO THE MATTER, THERE WILL BE A READY CHANNEL FOR THE DEAS OF THE JUDICIARY TO THE BLDC THROUGH MP JUSTICE SUMON LP WHO SITS ON THE DRAFTING COMMITTEE AND WHO IS IN FACTO CO-CHAIRMAN OF ONE OF THE COMMITTEE'S SPECIAL GROUPS DEALING WITH LEGAL MATTERS.

3. INT WAS ORIGINALLY THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S VIEW THAT THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO GIVE THIS MATTER THOUGHT UNTIL TOWARDS THE END OF THE DECADE BUT IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN LAUNCHED MN PEKING HE NOW SHARES MY VIEW THAT WE SHOULD BEGIN

CONSIDERING IMT STRAIGHT AWAY.

4. THERE WILL OF COURSE ALSO BE THE QUESTION OF WHEN THE NEW ARRANGEMENTS SHOULD BE BROUGHT INTO FORCE. THE CHIEF JUSTICE RIGHTLY TAKES THE VIEW THAT IT WOULD BE HIGHLY DESIRABLE TO BRING THEM #NTO EFFECT SOME YEARS BEFORE 1997 SO THAT A CORPUS OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUILT UP BEFORE THE TRANSITION. BUT THIS WILL HAVE EMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL

AND LEGAL MMPLICATIONS IN LONDON (WHICH COULD BRING AN ALSO THE PREROGATIVE POWER OF MERCY ETC). WHICH IS ANOTHER PEASON WHY

-

T CANNOT BE LEFT TO THE PRIVATE LEGAL PROFESSION.

CONFIDENTIAL

15.