SECRET
(iii) While the assertion of the extended
jurisdiction (ie the act of State) could no doubt be made by a prerogative Order in Council, I am uneasy about the assumption that the exercise of the extended jurisdiction - which would be made either by a general amendment to the 1898 Order or by the enactment of provisions dealing specifically with the grant of post-1997 leases could also properly be effected by a prerogative Order. I think that it is at least arguable that we ought, in those circum- stances, to rely on the Foreign Jurisdiction Act 1890, ie to proceed by an Order in Council which would be a statutory instrument. This, indeed, seems to be the logical corollary of what is said - and I agree with it in the last paragraph of the relevant part of Mr. Griffithis Opinion. But I claim no confidence at all about this. Our practice in respect of New Territories points the other way but it is highly anomalous: see the analysis on page 26 of Roberts-Wray which, with respect, do not find intellectually convincing. But what I do accept is that the legal efficacy of the Order in Council would not be open to successful challenge in any Hong Kong or UK court, irrespective of its form.
I
SECTION II
The so-called "lease" from China
I agree that, in purely legal terms, this is a red herring and
that HMG's position in respect of the New Territories is not that of
an ordinary lessee under the law of landlord and tenant. I there-
fore agree that the ordinary rules about theeffect of a lessee
purporting to grant a greater term by way of sub-lease than he himself
posseses would have no application. But I further agree that
arguments based on these rules could well be trotted out to damaging
effect, if we did purport to grant leases, unsupported by legislation,
-5-
SECRET