DOMI TDLNTIAL
Amendments to Lelters Patent and Royal
1.
2.
34
Instructions
In TELNO 1273 we promised a fuller assessment of the judgment of Kaplan J in the case which challenged the validity of a magistrate's appointment. Our views on the judgment and its implications follow.
judgment.
We understand that you have received a Copy of the However, for convenience, we set out our own resume of the judge's findings as we understood them:
(a) the power conferred by the Sovereign on the Governor by Article XIV of the Letters Patent to appoint public
magistrates, is
officers,
sub-delegable;
including
(2)
tne
statutory power to appoint magistrates conferred
on the Governor by section 5 of the Magistrates Ordinance (Chapter 227) is also delegable when read together with section
and General Clauses
latter provides that
63 (1) of the Interpretation Ordinance (Chapter 1). (The
where an Ordinance confers
powers on the Governor, he may delegate the exercise of the power to any person, whether identified by
UL by Ollice);
was
ā purported delegation of the statutory VL appointment by the then Governor on 14
February 1974 in favour of the office of Chief
Justice and since March 1974 all magistrates have bcen appointed by the Chief Justice pursuant to that purported delegation.
Ine purported delegation in 1974 was made without
XIV power of appointment
reference to the Article
und
was แย evidence that the Governor's mind
was directed to it;
CONFIDENTIAL