TNAG-2176-FCO40-3113-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-1990 — Page 201

KONAŤ melanO ORANJE

First, rather than advancing a systematic check

for conflicting legislation, a blanket freeze for such as

extended period is likely to postpone identification of

existing legislation that contravenes the Bill of Rights.

Difficulty in determining inconsistencies in the abstract

may arise without the benefit of specific factual contro-

versies presented after the Bill of Rights takes effect.

In addition, government officials and politicians may

have differing opinions on the extent to which existing

laws might conflict with the Bill of Rights and would

have no impetus to sharpen the debate and resolve the

inconsistencies.

Significantly, the two year freeze also would

serve to postpone court challenges providing judicial

review of existing legislation. On the other hand, early

opportunity for judicial interpretation of the Bill of

Rights would promote the development of standards for

human rights protection by building up a body of prece-

dent based on the Bill of Rights.

$

Neither of the Bills of Rights enacted by the

UK in Montserrat in January 1990 or in the Falkland Is-

lands a few years ago contained freeze periods for repeal

of inconsistent legislation. Both Bills of Rights for

those territories applied immediately to existing law

7