CONFIDENTIAL##.
Attorney General's Chambers
in AGC 5/20/620 (CB)
MEMO
Annex
О
To Commissioner for Television & Filma
No.
5-95601 (Ext. 26).
7th February, 1977.
Your Ref.. ... In......... TVA. 20/7. (CR).............
dated 31st January, 1977.
, ཨཏྠོ, ཙབྷཡསུ, སབྷདྡཔསཱ
Re: Film Censorship Regulations
The film censor has received an application for a provel to change the title of two films previously passed by the Censor under different names. The films themselves are unexceptional as regards content but the Censor's concern Is that the public may be ricled in so far as the same films will be shown under different titles. You have asked whether the Censor may ingose a condition that in the advertisements for those filns reference be made to the fact that the films have previously been released under other titles.
2.
Before examining the specific issue I should like to discuss the validity of the Film Censorship Regulations as a whole. The question of the vires of the Regulations was briefly considered in a memo from the Solicitor General to the Secretary for Home Affairs dated the 14th March 1972. The relevant paragraph reads as follows:-
3.
"Although there is of course nothing in the point about the
regulations being unconstitutional, I do have serious doubts about the vires. Section 7(1)(h) of Cap. 172 authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations to provide for the censoring of films 'on such principles as may be prescribed in such regulations'. As you know, the regulations contain nɔ guiding principles for the Censors and the Ecard. It could be argued that the regulations give an unfettered discretion to the Censors and that this was never the intention of the legislature. This possible defect obviously increases the chances of the omer taking the Board to court. I think it would be wise in any event to amend the regulations to supply the omission. I imagine that it would not be too difficult to devise a formula which would cover all the grounds on which you would wish to ban a film."
The important aspect is that by the terms of the enabling Ordinance it is the Governor in Council who is to set cut the principles upon which the Censor may act. The only reference to the terms of referenos of the Censor in the regulations is in reg. 6 which provides that the Consor may make such alteration or excision which is deemed necessary by him. As regards the general power of the Censor to refuse to approve a film and to approve a film subject to conlitions there are no principles prescribed by the regulations. One must assume that approval is entirely a matter for the Censor.
4.
The significance of this is that whereas the Legislature has delegated to the Governor in Council the duty to nasscribe the princiules usen uhích the Censor ic to act, the Governor in Council he effectively dele ved that moule to the Censor. Such a deleation is repugnant to the principle delegatus nɔn potest delezare:-
CONFIDENTIAL
... ཡཐཱ ཎྷཱ པཉྙཱ བྷཱར པཋཱ བྷཱཝཱ 'ཋཱ བྷཱ, ', -, སཾ, ",, བ༞ d, t, སོ ༈༙
In
Page 225Page 226