Letter: Court of Appeal in Hong Kong
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Mr R. J. F. Hoare
Sir: Your report from Hong Kong on 23 June ("Patten shrugs off motion of no confidence") repeats the mistake perpetuated in your previous article of 10 June ("London 'kowtows' on Hong Kong court") on the recently concluded Court of Final Appeal (CFA) agreement. You state that the agreement "takes away the court's powers to rule on 'acts of state' ". This is quite untrue. Nothing in the agreement or the CFA Bill takes away any powers from the court.
The formulation on "acts of state" in the Basic Law will be the law of Hong Kong as from 1 July 1997, regardless of whether or not it is also included in the CFA Bill. And it will be for the courts of the SAR (Special Administrative Region of China) to interpret this formulation, save in exceptional cases which involve an interpretation of a provision of the Basic Law that relates to the powers of the central government, or the relationship between the central authorities and the region.
Both articles also failed to report that the CFA agreement provides for the establishment of a proper Court of Final Appeal that, subject only to the Basic Law, will have the same functions and jurisdiction as the judicial committee of the Privy Council does now in respect of Hong Kong; and that the agreement enables the court to be established on the basis of a Bill passed before the end of July, which means that now - two years before it is set up on 1 July, 1997 - there will be certainty about its nature and jurisdiction.
Both articles also quoted Martin Lee as attacking the agreement. But they failed to report the fact that it has been warmly welcomed by the Chief Justice of Hong Kong, by the local and international business community, by Hong Kong's major trading partners - including the US, the EU, Australia, Canada and Japan - and, according to independent opinion polls, by the people of Hong Kong as well.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Hoare
Director of Administration
Government Secretariat
Hong Kong
27 June
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments