I READ with interest, and some surprise, Paul Kerson's article headlined, 'Grounds for appeal in China' in the South China Morning Post, on April 25.
Mr Kerson expressed the view that 'when taken together, articles 158, 82 and 84 [of the Basic Law], set up a relationship between the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal and the Standing Committee of the NPC very similar to the relationship between the New York State Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court'.
He assumed that an appeal would be 'taken from the new Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (equivalent in jurisdiction to the New York State Court of Appeals) to the Standing Committee of the NPC (now equivalent to the United States Supreme Court)'.
This is simply not true.
Let us look at what the Basic Law says: (a) Article 82 provides that: 'The power of final adjudication of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be vested in the Court of Final Appeal of the Region, which may as required invite judges from other common law jurisdictions to sit on the Court of Final Appeal.' (b) Article 84 says that: 'The courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall adjudicate cases in accordance with the laws applicable in the Region as prescribed in Article 18 of this Law and may refer to precedents of other common law jurisdictions.' (c) Article 158 in full reads: 'The power of interpretation of this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.
'The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress shall authorise the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to interpret on their own, in adjudicating cases, the provisions of this Law which are within the limits of the autonomy of the Region.
