TNAG-2323-FCO40-3367-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-Vietnamese-boat-people-1991 — Page 35

Ms/Maj

Ms/Major

or, HKD

CONFIDENTIAL

Reference

14

From:

Jill Barrett

Date:

да

терт

Teem to HK

НК

fa PM 24/2

HKC 241/4

TOY

25 FEB 1991

STRY

INDEX

Acuon Totten

Assistant Legal Adviser K166 270 3381

11 February 1991

(without enclosures)

Mr Bruce, SEAD

Mr Walwyn, UND

Mr Rankin, Legal Advisers Mr Hendry, Legal Advisers

VIETNAMESE BOAT PEOPLE AND THE HONG KONG BILL OF RIGHTS

1.

8

(12)

I refer to my minute of 24 January on which I have done some further research in the light of Hong Kong telno 315 to see how our discussion with Hong Kong in 1982 about their legislative amendments was concluded.

2.

1983 HKK 243/3 (16)

We told Hong Kong, in FCO telno 106 of 2 February 1983, that the Secretary of State "agrees that the legislation, although it is in breach of HMG's obligations under the ICCPR, may remain in force. Bearing in mind the difficulties that the policy causes we should be grateful if the legislation can be revoked as soon as the situation allows: we are sure that you will review the policy regularly". The principal difficulties identified were the deprivation of liberty for indefinite periods coupled with the absence of judicial procedures to test the merits of the detention. Legal advisers considered the legislation to be incompatible with Article 9(1) and (4), and doubted whether the reservations would be adequate to cover it. The Law Officers Department of the Attorney General's Chambers (HMG) were informed of the potential legal difficulties. We did not describe the breaches as "technical", as suggested in paragraph 3 of Hong Kong telno 315, nor do I think it would be correct to do so.

3.

As regards the UK's second report to the Human Rights Committee submitted in 1988, we included a brief explanation of the closed camp policy introduced on 2 July 1982 (paragraphs 25-29). Mr Fearn gave further explanation orally (CCPR/C/SR.855, para 18). At the hearing, members of the Committee did ask questions relating to VBP; in particular, what was the Government's policy on the right to freedom of movement in relation to persons recognised as refugees, persons not so recognised and persons who had applied for refugee status but in whose case a decision was pending; and what were the reasons for

FIFAAT

CODE 18-77

CONFIDENTIAL