WHEN Secretary for Security Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee last month unveiled the figure of 1.67 million mainlander arrivals, the basis of the Government's case for overturning the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) ruling on right of abode, she listed several ways the ruling could be changed.
One was for the court to deliver another judgment reversing its earlier ruling. Mrs Ip even cited a Privy Council ruling in 1966 which she claimed showed this was acceptable in cases of great importance.
But by the time Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa appeared before the Legislative Council a week later this option had gone. Mr Tung insisted the only choices were amendment or re-interpretation of the Basic Law.
Nonetheless it is now clear there was serious discussion within Government about the possibility of trying to persuade the court to change its mind.
Secretary for Constitutional Affairs Michael Suen Ming-yeung, Acting Chief Secretary for part of the period, favoured the idea. So did Information Co-ordinator Stephen Lam Sui-lung.
There were even suggestions on how to make such an application. One idea floated in internal meetings was to revive litigation dropped more than a year ago. This involves mainland children in a similar, but not identical, situation as the five test cases that led to the January 29 judgments.