MA15ST 76-18
DIRECTOR OF ADM.
852 877 0802 P.30
28
dismissals which the Governor cannot effect personally
because of their volume, can we undertaken by persons ne
authorises by devolution so that they remain his acts 111 law. It seems to me unrealistic to expect that the Governor could effectively retain the responsivility for all
appointments and visassals in the entire cavil service
which the application of that principle requires unless it
15 to we complete fiction.
If this conclusion is riunt, in my judgment it
would be quite wrong for the courts to attempt, in effect,
to dictate to the Governor in respect of which offices in
Articles XIV and XVI he can and cannot delegate the power to
appoint and
$15.155. it is a matter
Matter for the political
quayment of the Governor. It is not right to suggest that
the courts could declare that the Governor may delegate the
power to appoint, say, only public officers below a certain
rank, or all public officers except judicial officers. It
an
!
S not for the courts to uraw such jemarcation lines.
sention here that it seems to me that this would pe
eminently suitable task, where appropriate, for the Governor, with the auvice and consent of the Legislative
Council, to undertake under Article VII if he 15 not
exercisin has NOWERS irectly under Article xiv.
Is the power to appoint under S.J of the wayistrates ordinance elegable?
Before I acuress this issue, I would opserve that I accept the proposition that if the Governor cannot lawfully delegate his Article XIV powers in relation to the appointment of magistrates, ne cannot do so under the authority of a local statute for any such provision would be repugnant to the Letters Patent.
In my view, the expression in his opinion" which occurs in s.5(1) is no impediment in itself to a lawful