TNAG-2177-FCO40-3114-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-1990 — Page 167

!

Pamela

CONFIDENTIAL

This version has been

faxed to HK, Flo Tehno

331

1860 refer.

B

4/10

This is the revised version Below is the original with the corrictions in red ink

a a note so that I can HKD241 undustand our tens 1866

Mr Paul, HKD

From: Paul Fifoot

Legal Advisers

Date: 4 October 1990

CC Mr McLaren

18 D241

9 OCT 1990

Mr Burns

Ms Major, HKD Ms Foakes

Barrett

CISTAY

Acron Taken

HUMAN RIGHTS IN HONG KONG: THE BASIC LAW AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS

1. We spoke the other day about the Bill of Rights (BOR) and the present suggestion to introduce a provision which says expressly that the BOR is subject to the Basic Law. I mentioned, as I have before, my general disquiet about the provisions regarding human rights in Hong Kong. It may be useful to summarise them here as a preface to considering the present suggestion in paragraphs 8 and 9 below.

2.

Statute law may be complicated and difficult to

understand, but it is the function of the draughtsman to make a draft law as intelligible as his instructions permit so as to give adequate guidance to those who have to administer the law, to the courts who have to apply and interpret it and, so far as is possible, to the ordinary intelligent person who may read it and be affected by it. It should be the function of the Legislator to seek to ensure that the law which he enacts serves the purpose of the enactment with as much clarity as is possible. For both draughtsman and Legislator, it should be an aim to eliminate those ambiguities, obscurities and possible contradictions or inconsistencies which become apparent during the drafting and legislative process. (Neither can do anything, short of amendment, about those which may only become apparent after enactment.)

In

3. Although human rights codes are of their very nature more general in their scope and expression than more ordinary domestic legislation, the human rights provisions which have been made or are proposed for Hong Kong are lacking in clarity, obscure and have substantial inconsistencies. important areas, it is not possible to express a view with any confidence of the course domestic courts may take in interpreting these provisions.

The Basic Law contains one general provision (Article 39) designed to give effect in domestic law to the ICCPR, and at

4.

4 PFABV

CONFIDENTIAL