TNAG-2332-FCO40-3393-Future-of-Hong-Kong-localisation-of-laws-admiralty-jurisdic-1991 — Page 7

HKC370/7

RECEN

12 FEB 1991

INDE

/css/

Mr Sainty

HKD

From:

4

Telint (agreed with

Miss Bucks) p.a. Loralimnion of Laws:

Admirally Jurisdicti

Miss S Brooks

Legal Counsellor K 199

270 3069

Date:

5 February 1991

1. Thank you for digging out the further papers which I

requested.

2. Having read Hong Kong telno 318 of 30 January 1991, I am persuaded by the Hong Kong Government's arguments and by the fact that the FCO was informed beforehand, I agree with every point which Paul Fifoot made in his minute to you of 8 January 1991. However, it appears that the Hong Kong Government intend to amend the Ordinance at a later date in order to cure the present defect. This would be done by narrowing the scope of the term "British nationals" so as to confine it to those belonging to Hong Kong. I am well aware from my time in Hong Kong that it is proving difficult to define British nationals belonging to Hong Kong. But as Hong Kong Government explain in paragraph 2 of

they telno 318, such a definition is necessary for general legislative purposes. In these circumstances, the risk that the present defect will not be cured by a later amendment is small. As the Hong Kong courts had similar jurisdiction before the Ordinance was made, I do not see any great harm in allowing the present Ordinance to continue unamended for the time being. The problem of defining "British national" with the relevant connection to Hong Kong in such a way that it will survive 1997 will need to be solved for Hong Kong legislation in the next six and a half years.

2. Moreover in practice, I do not think that cases involving British nationals with no connection with Hong Kong who have committed offences outside Hong Kong are likely to come before the Hong Kong courts very often.