TNAG-2175-FCO40-3112-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-1990 — Page 332

INHAL

假密

13

13

reasons and Members decided then against any change. The advice of the FCO

FCO is that injunctive action against the Crown is not essential for providing effective remedy under the ICCPR. In any event, the Crown Proceedings Ordinance will have to be localized and may be subject to review in that context. The LegCo Ad Hoc Group agrees with this course of action.

28.

Another issue is whether only the High Court should have jurisdiction on BOR proceedings as in other commonwealth countries. We do not recommend this as our objective is to make the Judiciary as accessible as possible and lower courts in HK are now required to interpret complex issues of law and capable of doing so. It would be a major change to the existing legal system to deprive lower courts and tribunals of the ability

ability to determine issues of the kind which are bound to arise when legislation is tested against the amended Letters Patent. In any event, the decision and determination of lower courts are subject to review in the Supreme Court through the normal appeal process.

29.

There have been representations,

been representations, with which the LegCo Ad Hoc Group agrees, that a lower court or tribunal should have the power, on application or of its own violition, to stay the proceedings and refer the human rights issues to the High Court for determination. We do not recommend such an arrangement because it is likely to generate premature and wasteful referrals to the Supreme Court of Bill of Rights points, which may ultimately turn out not to have a bearing on the outcome of the case because of evidential considerations

considerations not apparent at the time of the referral.

CONFIDENTIAL *****