to that available (if any) under the ordinary law. It would therefore be open to the courts to decide that as regards certain rights, only public authorities were liable.
On the other hand, the Bermuda article does not state in clear terms who may be liable for a violation and if it is ultimately decided that it is important for it to be spelled out in the BOR that only public authotities are to be liable or that private persons are also to be potentially liable, then it would be possible to combine Clause 7 of the Bill with the relevant paragraphs of the Bermuda article;
(b) there could well be a question whether paragraph (2) of the Bermuda article is sufficiently wide to allow the court to award damages. It would be prudent to add to that paragraph "grant such remedy or relief" as in the Hong Kong Bill;
(c) I am not convinced that it is necessary to require every BoR issue to be referred to the Supreme Court. The "due process" issues, at least, should be capable of being determined in the cases in which they arise, even in subordinate courts, if there is a process whereby they could be transmitted to the Supreme Court if it were appropriate to do so.
17. The Bermuda article also draws attention to a provision which Hong Kong should consider inserting in its own bill notwithstanding the generalpower to make rules of court, ie the need to make special rules for what is a very special jurisdiction.
Letters patent
18. I do not think that there is any need to add to the summary.
Paul Fifoot
7
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.