DIRECTOR OF ADM.
852 877 0803
P.18
10
the Letters Patent, ne nac not, in fact, SU
delegated those powers to the Chief Justice.
It must therefore follow that ma Line's
appointment was invalid as having been
the wrong person.
Made by
(12) This, however, was not the end of the matter
•
Line nac not ween properly
for ne Pau to consider the submission that
even ) t
appointed by reason cf the lack of delega ation,
shouls, for all other purposes,
re
be treatea
on the
C: magistrate under what had beer. termed the
de facto quave principle or doctrine.
case la. and cther sources he referred to and
iscussed, the udge accepted chat the
soctrine contendec for existed, anc was
applicable in criminal cases as well
as
In
cases.
121
A5 to the application of the rule that acts ci de facto officers could not be collaterally irpeacneu, since the Clus naj not yet ween Committed tor trial and would nave to appear wefore I.
to time, uno
1Y0-
they were seekiny judicial review of
.I.
Line's cecision not to grant C stay upon
-rounds which includeu an attack cr: Mis
appointment, ne (the judge, could not conclude that the attack was collateral so that it would we defeated by the wẹ racto doctrine. Tempting though it might be for any judye to apply the doctrine to preserve the status quo, ne oid not think that it would be right to co SO on the facts of this case.
his
This is now the judge himself summarised conclusions before he gave nis reasons and wefore he
addressed the "de lacto juaye”
submission: