TNAG-2184-FCO40-3121-Hong-Kong-nationality-international-support-1991 — Page 12

HKD 340/1

RECEIVED IN REGISTEY

2 9 NOV 1990

DSK OFFICE+

INDE

PA

Mr Morris, HKD

From:

Paul Fifoot

Legal Advisers

Y

ken

Date: 4 October 1990

Int Sup

412

GIBRALTAR: OFFER OF RESIDENCY PERMITS TO HONG KONG INVESTORS

1.

469

I can only give you a preliminary view on the point raised in your minute of 24 September mainly because I cannot be happy with the texts of the Gibraltar laws which you sent me. There seems to be some discrepancy in the cross-referencing both internal to the Immigration Control Ordinance and between that Ordinance and the Gibraltarian Status Ordinance. In any event, this must be a matter where we need guidance from the Gibraltar Law Officers as to the effect of their own law.

2. My first impressions, however, are as follows:-

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

I doubt whether anybody would be prepared to make a substantial investment on the basis of a permit under section 18 since this is subject to cancellation at any time under section 20;

even if an individual were prepared to take the risk of cancellation, an annual permit requires an individual to be employed in Gibraltar and I do not think that a person can be treated as employed merely because he invests money in Gibraltar. It does not appear to me that the Principal Immigration Officer has power to waive the statutory condition set out in section 18 (3);

section 14 (2) does not have any relevance either to section 18 or to section 31;

the Governor, acting in his discretion (ie without being obliged to consult and act on the advice of the Council of Ministers), could issue a certificate of permanent residence under section

31;

it would seem to be a contradiction in fact if the Governor were to grant a certificate of permanent residence to a person who is essentially a non-resident, and if he were to do so, the question would arise whether there were an abuse of his statutory power. This could well be the

4 PFABW