TNAG-2731-FCO40-3937-Future-of-Hong-Kong-constitutional-development-1993 — Page 133

Miss Cander

вы

Pre turn Air into a telegram to Hary Kary, referring to her feeking

ow new

e clear wilt

Legal Advisers. I ad like to get thi off on 28 Jan,

Mr Ricketts, HKD

Ricketts,

CONFIDENTIAL

Wish

a

RECI

нив оч

azlı

-3 FEB 1993

PA

fax

5/

#GISTRY

2. Yakon

45)

possible make this

self starting opicions, "I water capter's

From:

K J Chamberlain

Date:

refe to lesbice.

Deputy Legal Adviser forrespondence.

27 January 1993

CC Mr Hum

Mr Wye, RAD

Miss Brooks

Ms Barrett

Mr Parker

Mr Edwards, Hong Kong

HONG KONG: CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: "ONE MAN ONE VOTE"

1.

I

I refer to your minute of 18 January to Shelagh Brooks. agreed with Miss Brooks that I should take this on since David Edwards discussed it with me when he visited London last month. I have also received a letter from David Edwards of 19 January which enclosed his Opinion. This I attach (without its

attachments).

2.

I convened a meeting on 25 January with Shelagh Brooks, Jill Barrett and Nigel Parker where we considered David Edwards' Opinion. We were in general agreement with his Opinion. In particular we considered that his interpretation of the UK reservation to the ICCPR as given effect to by section 13 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights was correct. That being so, we considered that any possible inconsistency between the proposed legislation and Article 25 ICCPR would be caught by the scope of the UK's reservation so as not to put us in breach of the ICCPR.

3. In the first instance it would be for the Courts in Hong Kong to interpret the Bill of Rights and there is of course no absolute guarantee that they will interpret it so broadly. However, in the (we hope) unlikely event of a court in Hong Kong interpreting section 13 of the Bill of Rights narrowly, eg on the lines of the arguments put forward in Ian Deane's Opinions of 7 February 1992 and 17 December 1992, then the arguments contained in David Edwards' minute of 22 December 1992 could be used as a fall-back. This argument essentially is that Article 25 (b) of the ICCPR gives citizens a right and opportunity to vote in elections on the basis of universal and

HONGKONG/1manIvote26.1

CONFIDENTIAL