Frank Stock Esq QC Solicitor-General Legal Department HONG KONG
3911
377
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Mr Paul 6.
No need her a
fur. the term.
HKD 241/1
RECE
30 NOV 1990
London SW1A 2AH
29 November 1990
RM 29/11
Four Frank, Энг
BILL OF RIGHTS
D' INDE
A recent telegram from Hong Kong provoked further thinking about what is the effect, as a matter of law rather than of the political and Chinese dimension, of adding to the Bill of Rights a provision that "this Ordinance is subject to the [amended] Letters Patent". The result was a minute to Pamela Major, a copy of which I enclose. I am not particularly happy or satisfied with the minute which, as you will see, is principally related to the period before 1997 - the change to "subject to the Basic Law" after 1997 has a very different impact but I thought you might be interested in
-
the way I have been worrying over the issue.
The later paragraphs of the minute also touch on the question of whether it is worthwhile retaining Clause 4 of the Bill if to remove it could clinch a deal with the Chinese. You will see that I have described Clause 4 as a projection into the future of an element of an existing rule of construction. This I understand to be its effect (ie the courts are to strive against any repugnancy between the Bill of Rights and any later Ordinance in order that the Bill of Rights may continue to have effect) though the way it is expressed in the Blue Bill gives a rather different impression.
مش
Yours Pad For
Paul Fifoot
Legal Advisers
bcc
Ms Major, HKD
6PFAAR
Page 15Page 16
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.