000
GOVERNMENT HUUSE
HUNG KUNG
4-23
CONFIDENTIAL
(d)
Laere was
no inconsistency between Section 5 and the said Article XIV;
12.
сле
sala
(b) it was Common ground
that
the
said
sub-delegation need not be in writing and could
be made orally; and
(c) the intention to sub-delegate was clear.
and
(6) The Learned judge erred in holding that because the
been Respondents have not
trial nave been given leave to challenge the magistrate's
review on Judicial
aecision
by
for committed
grounds
Which
include an attack on the magistrate's appointment,
he
could
collateral
conclude noc
chat the said attack is
and that the de facto judge doctrine
could not assist on Crown.
い
ine
Learned Juage errea 1л
Law
quashing
S
the
the
ground
decision made
eacondents' application
DICUCI.C aya b
facto Juage
Chat
the Respondents
appointment
ان
on 17th October 1990 refusing
to stay the CX Chem 2.14
미
doctrine when 1t was common
never challengea
the
as
a
MI.
Line
val----! UL the permanent magistrate until long after he had given the said ruling against them.
FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant reserves the right to amend or add to the above stated grounds of appeal.
CONFIDENTIAL