TNAG-2236-FCO40-3215-Hong-Kong-and-China-subversion-and-student-demonstrations-1991 — Page 37

BY FAX

23 October 1991

RESTRICTED

S E Bradley Esq

Deputy Political Adviser Hong Kong

HKB CGI/1

DIEN-ET

Foreign & Commonwealth

Office

ou

London SWIA 2AH

Telephone: 071-

Dear Stephen,

CONFERENCE OF CHINESE STUDENT FEDERATIONS: JULY 1991

m

ра

24/x

1.

The Hong Kong Government's decision last June to refuse entry to overseas activists seeking to attend this proposed conference in Hong Kong (your telno 2042) avoided a serious row with China, was generally well understood within Hong Kong and did not cause too much international opprobrium. Thus, though it is now past history, we assume that you would probably take the same action if similar circumstances arise in future. To avoid leaving a loose end on the file could I therefore trouble you with a request for clarification on one point: the domestic legal basis of the decision?

2.

Your telno 2260 para 4 pointed out that under Section (11)(1) of the Immigration Ordinance, an Immigration Officer may refuse a visitor leave to enter Hong Kong, even if he holds a visa. However in comparable circumstances in the UK there would be certain constraints on the way in which the Immigration Officer could exercise such a power (eg it would have to be in accordance with established interpretations of the Immigration Rules and could not be simply in execution of a political decision taken elsewhere) and it would be subject to judicial review. In the same telegram para 1 you said that your legal advice was that the students refused entry stood very little chance, if any, of succeeding in their application for a judicial review (or habeas corpus). Your telno 2276 further explained that you considered it unlikely that the courts would agree to proceed with a judicial review into the case of the students refused entry at the airport once they had been removed.

3.

If you can provide any more background on your legal advice, it would be of interest here. I suppose it is arguable that the case has some general implications regarding the scope for political direction in HKG decision-making.

Yours ever, Nigel.

N J Cox

MARAJA

RESTRICTED

(72