was hoped that they would be resettled as quickly as possible and negotiations were currently under way to achieve that. Those not recognized as refugees were held in detention centres pending repatriation to Viet Nam. The latter were entitled to leave Hong Kong if they so wished, but the majority did not have the facilities to do so.
VIII. Freedom of movement and expulsion of aliens (articles 12 and 13)
17.
Mr. FEARN (United Kingdom), answering the question on whether an appeal against an expulsion order generally had a suspensive effect
(section VIII (a)), said that the law required an expulsion order to be suspended pending an appeal in all the territories concerned except Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and Pitcairn. In those territories a court would have jurisdiction to order suspension pending judicial review of an expulsion order and would usually be expected to do so. In Pitcairn, in view of the very limited and infrequent transport facilities, the issue would rarely arise in practice.
18. With regard to section VIII (b) of the list of issues and the current practice in Hong Kong relating to expulsion of aliens, there was a limited right for an alien to seek a review of a removal order. Where the Director of Immigration made a removal order against an alien, there was a right of appeal and the execution of the removal order was suspended until the time-limit for lodging an appeal had passed or a pending appeal was determined. An alien could only succeed in an appeal against a removal order if it was established that at the time of the order he had had the permission of the Director of Immigration to remain in Hong Kong. An appeal could be dismissed without a hearing, but if there was a hearing the alien might be allowed representation. There was no right of review of a decision by the Governor in Council to order deportation under section 20 of the Immigration Ordinance and no right to be
Consideration was present or represented at the meeting considering the same. not currently being given to withdrawing the United Kingdom's reservation to article 13 of the Covenant.
19.
**
Mr. ZIELINSKI asked what were the material reasons for the United Kingdom's"reservation to article 13 of the Covenant:›
20.
Mr. DIMITRIJEVIC said that he undertsood the United Kingdom's
n's reservation on article 12 to mean that freedom of movement under paragraph 1 applied only within a particular dependent territory and the right of entry under paragraph 4 similarly applied only to the right to enter that particular dependent territory, but that the United Kingdom reserved the right to apply or not to apply those rules in particular cases. He asked what arrangements currently applied to travel among the dependent territories and between them and the United Kingdom.
21. Mr. FEARN (United Kingdom) said that, as he understood it, Governments were not required to set out the reasons for any reservations they had made. Their obligation was, rather, to explain how they implemented the provisions that they had accepted.
22. Mr. HENDRY (United Kingdom), replying to the question raised by Mr. Dimitrijevic, said that the nationality provisions brought into force in 1981 divided nationals of the United Kingdom into various categories: those who were British subjects having connections with the United Kingdom
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.