TNAG-2004-FCO40-2852-Hong-Kong-political-parties-1990 — Page 19

19:47 MAPTIN LEE'S CHAMBERS

853 5 8812939

2) the acts in question--an orderly, lawful week-long protest

for treating against thefaut by the British and Chinese Governments, to

her their promises of instituting a democratically elected

legislature in Hong Kong;

3) the offence to be charged--a frequently violated but rarely

enforced clause that the Government itself has recognised

possibly violates the proposed Hong Kong Bill of Rights. The

Government, moreover, has submitted to the United Nations Human

Rights Committee that it would only enforce the clause under

certain special circumstances.

4) the timing of the summonses--three months after the events in

question but only two weeks before widespread demonstrations

commemorating the June 4 Beijing Massacre.

Members of the UDHK wish to make clear that, since the

case is now under consideration by the courts, they will not make

any comment on the merits of the case, nor will they in any way

7 the last. attempt to influence the

cutcome.

They will, however,

comment upon the decision of the Attorney General to prosecute,

contain

the merits of re Hong Kong laws, the implications for the

Hong Kong Bill of Rights, and the political importance of the

case.

Howe

than

Only earlier this month, on 2 May,

Secretary for

Constitutional Affairs, Michael Suen, released a list of statutos

that were "possibly inconsistent" with the proposed Hong Kong

Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a virtually verbatim copy

of most of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights, to which Britain is a signatory and which

2