TNAG-2177-FCO40-3114-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-1990 — Page 75

possible, but will also postpone court challenges providing

The judiciary, not the judicial review of existing legislation. executive or legislature, is in the best position to promote the development of standards for human rights protection by building

As the Law up a body of precedent based on the Bill of Rights. Group noted in its previous memorandum, difficulty in determining inconsistencies in the abstract may arise without the benefit of

specific factual controversies presented after the Bill of Rights takes effect. Unlike the judiciary, government officials and politicians with differing opinions on the extent to which existing laws might conflict with the Bill of Rights may have no

impetus to sharpen the dabate and resolve the inconsistencies.

In addition to the one-year freeze on all pre-existing

legislation, the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Bill provides for the

use of a predetermined and as yet unpublished "Schedule" of legislation that would remain unaffected by the Bill of Rights

for an additional year, or such longer period as the Legislative

Council may determine. Part III, Sections 14 (3) and (4). Rather

than identifying conflicting laws to facilitate quick reform and

compliance with the Bill of Rights, the additional and potentially unlimited freeze period threatens to severely hinder

the system of repealing or amending pre-existing conflicting

legislation and further postpone the development of common law

precedent. In addition, the Schedule provision fails to provide

guidelines for the Legislative Council to determine when and for

how long extensions should be provided.

Page 75Page 76