VVIIUCINTIAL
誠密
6
Freeze period (Clause 1(2))
12.
Practically all those who made written submissions and DB members who expressed a view on this issue are opposed to a two-year freeze period. The commonly held view is that the protection of human rights afforded under the Bill of Rights should be made fully available as soon as pssible, that the full implementation of the Bill should commence early so as to allow more time for a reasonable body of case law to be built up before 1997, and that the authority for interpretation of local laws as to their compatibility with the Bill rests
rests with the Judiciary, not the Administration nor the Legislature. suggested that there should be no freeze period at all.
Some have
13.
The main purpose of å freeze is to avoid the destabilising effects of legislative and operational vacuums which may occur if statutory laws are found to be invalid and, for practical reasons, there are substantial delays before they can be replaced. The Administration has
undertaken to make use of the proposed freeze period to review existing legislation and to amend legislation which is likely to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. The LegCo Ad Hoc Group was not convinced that there would be the time or resources to
resources to review the contents of all Hong Kong statutes, innocuous or otherwise, in a two-year period. It also felt that an element of uncertainty would any event remain as ultimately the issue of compatibility with the Bill of Rights is still subject to judicial interpretation.
in
CONFIDENTIAL
機密
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.