TNAG-2318-FCO40-3362-Petitions-from-members-of-the-public-regarding-Hong-Kong-1991 — Page 19

SALAAR/VAS

Reference.

26

нис 236/1

RECHA DIN RECISTRY

13 MAR 1991

Ms Brooks

DESK OFFICER

Legal Advisers

MOLX

НА

PETITION TO THE QUEEN: MR HUNG KAI-MING

23

1.

2.

Your minutes of 6 February and 15 February refer.

As you know it was decided to recommend to the AUS that this petition, because of its trivial nature, should not be forwarded to the palace and should be given a departmental reply. I duly submitted this recommendation to Mr Burns. It seems however, that some further clarification of procedure is necessary. attach Mr Burn's manuscript minutes of 3 and 4 March.

I

3. Mr Burns raises the question of whether petitions such as this one, should be referred directly to the Secretary of State. My understanding of DSP Vol 8, chapter 9 (Volume 4 in the 1990 edition of DSP) is that petitions to the Queen fall into the category of petitions addressed or referred to the Secretary of State, (para 9.4.1) I take "referred to the Secretary of State" to mean also petitions referred by the OAG to the relevant department acting for the Secretary of State. My understanding from this and from annex 9.1 of the 1990 DSP Vol 4, is that unless the AUS disagrees with the recommendation not to forward the petition to the palace, the Secretary of State need not see the petition. I would be grateful to know if this is indeed the correct interpretation.

4. Mr Burns notes the absence of supporting papers. In fact, I did not submit the majority of these on the grounds that the submission would then have been excessively long. I shall now submit these (as attached). It seems to me that bar the fact that there are no papers relating to the findings of "guilty" and "not guilty", the information supplied by Hong Kong Government is adequate. I would be grateful for your views on this point and on whether it would be advisable or beneficial to request the missing papers.

This was

In

5. Mr Burns also notes the defect in the disciplinary proceedings against Hung ie that Hung was not given a chance to plead in mitigation against the punishment awarded him. recognised by the Hong Kong Government but I do not find that this was remedied, although Mr Hung was informed about it. your minute of 6 February you take the view that Hung was not prejudiced by this. I wonder however if this gives us any grounds to ask Hong Kong to review the case (as Mr Burns suggests). I understand however that should we wish to challenge the Hong Kong Government's verdict on this case, a submission to the Secretary of State will be required (para 9.4.2).

CODE 18-77