15-MAY-1991 16:05
DIRECTOR OF ADM.
952 877 0802
P. 11
A
artin Lee, V.C.
ir. Denis Chang, J.C. (for the son).
appeared for the Attorney-eneral posn in the lowel court
and wefore us.
Te have been adaressed on penalt of .
Javio Chic and air. Deacon Chiu by the same loading
counsel who represented them wefore Kaplan, J. Submissions
on cenalf of Mr. David Chiu were also made to us by
.ir. cCoy. Counsel for the Chaus took a common stand on the
principal issues and I hope they will forgive me it I co nut
identit ;' the counsel
У гале ho advanceu a particular
SUD:ission nich I discuss in this judgment.
The Funuamental contention was that the power to
POINT agistrates nad veen entrusted by Article XV or the
Letters Patent +C the Governor aco to him alone. It was
Submitted that 3 magistrate came within that Article either
as a Judye, or a Justice of the Peace; or as a public
officer. There was, 1= was pointes out, no express power of
celegation as there was in Article XIII as the result of a
1you amendment which followed the decision of the Full Court
In HO 20 Sang v. Director of Public Works (1) HÁLA 032.
as
in that
AS to s. of the magistrates Ordinance, it was
aryued that this was consistent with the Letters Fatent
provided that the Governor as the appointor. All that the 174 amendment has Cone (by celeting the words
"under his ranu") Nas to inclicate that the Governor was no
evidencing the appointment Only the Governor could form an opinion for
longer culiged to sign a warrant
ne had ade.
the purposes of the expression
"10 nis opinion" in s.5(1)
and this opinion did not relate merely to the number of
mayistrates to we appointed.
Attention was drawn to the fact that in the Gazette wotice notifying Mr. Line's appointment, no mention had been made of s.03 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance. This was to be contrasted with, for example,