-
- 5 -
However, as has been pointed out the law of
libel already exists which protects Members as ordinary persons and there may be other laws which are relevant. The Government therefore, if Members are content, is prepared not to proceed with this clause.
However the Administration, as Mrs Selena Chow has
drawn attention, continues to see merit in having
provisions to guard against the disclosure of confidential information and
proceedings, and will
make an examination of the
objectives can be achieved.
extent to which these
Clause 24 has
24 has been denounced on the ground that it excludes the jurisdiction of the Courts in relation to the manner in which the Council, its
President and its officers exercise powers conferred by the Bill or Standing Orders, conferred by the Bill
or the Standing Orders. I do not think the true meaning and effect of clause 24 is quite So far reaching as its critics have alleged.
The relationship between the Legislature and
the Courts on the one hand, and the Executive on the other, is finely balanced. It has been the tradition
in Common Law jurisdictions that neither the Executive the Legislature should enter upon the sphere of
responsibility of the Judiciary. The Judiciary
likewise does not enact legislation. This is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of separation of powers. I do not intend to dwell on the scope of the
doctrine except to remind members that it is not a new principle of constitutional law, and it is certainly not the subject of the provisions of this Bill.
This Bill does not purport to alter the constitution. On the contrary it is well within the authority and powers of this Council to debate such a Bill. As with any other legislature, no Court can
question the laws made by this Council in accordance