TNAG-2176-FCO40-3113-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-1990 — Page 97

L

ป

relating

nhe ICCPR to help interover and apply the Bill ot

ac

Nights, We have therefore decided at le unnecessary to retain

Clause 213)(b) of the White Bill.

13.

During Che public consnitation,

aumber Di

representations asked

whother it vas neceseazY to incluce

pubile emergency clause.

We have retained the Clause as

should be provisions on the

iesirable that there

ircumstances under which derogation from the Bill will be

permissible, as provided under the ICCPR.

14.

tort.

We

There has been criticism on Clause 6(1) of the White

Bill which characterised a breach of the Bill of Rights as &

Some people argued that a tort action, Watch i

successful normally Leads to a remedy in damages, would be

inappropriate in some cases for a breach of Bill of Rights.

believe that there is some force in the argument and have

now deleted this provision. In our view, Clause 5 as how

sufficient to enable courts and tribunals to grant

an effective remedy in respect of breaches of the Bill of

Rights and will enable damages to be awarded when it is

appropriate and just to do so.

drafted is

15.

The

obligations of inaividuals to each other proposed

in Clause 7 of the White Bill have caused concern in the

business sector.

They have

reservations as to whether the