TNAG-2387-FCO40-3469-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 113

Hong Kong, which is defined in the (Hong Kong) Interpretation and

General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) as "any proclamation, rule,

regulation, order, rule of court, by-law or other instrument made

under or by virtue of any Ordinance and having legislative ef-

fect". It would therefore exclude the Fugitive Offenders (Hong

Kong) Order 1967 which is not made under a Hong Kong Ordinance.

It is my opinion that the Order would lapse on 1 July 1997 and

with its going will also go the guarantee in section 14 of the

Schedule thereto.

14. There is no Ordinance in Hong Kong which incorporates such a

guarantee. But even if such Ordinance were enacted, I am of the

opinion that it would not be good law after 1997. Article 7 of

the Basic Law makes an important qualification for the continued

application of local ordinances. They are valid only in so far

as they do not contravene the Basic Law. The decision as

as to

which existing laws will become invalid on the transfer of sover-

eignty for contravention of the Basic Law will be determined by

the Standing Committee of the NPC (art. 160 of the Basic Law).

Subject to the Constitution of the PRC, the Basic Law is the

supreme law of the HKSAR (this is implicit, e.g., in the rules

for the interpretation of the Basic Law, art. 158, and its amend-

ment, art. 159; see also art.17). There are at least two ways in

which an existing or future ordinance may contravene the Basic

Law. It could fall within an area of the competence of the Hong

Kong legislature ("internal affairs') but violate a restriction

placed on how that competence may be exercised.

or it could

9