15-MAY-1991 16:21
DIRECTOR OF ADM.
852 877 0802
P.33
31
summary of the judgment appealed against, particuları, requirement that the official snoulu we under the supervision and control of
the
the Governor ca the Chiet Justice, for ccvious constitutional reasons, could not we. It is also said that the Chief Justice is an inappropriate recipient of the Governor's delegation by reason of Juris lction under the Supreine Court Jruinance
to the
ecutive.
in relation
? have no coupt that the Governor's power of selection Incer 5.03 c Cap. 1 is, in principle, subject to
ci
puuicial review on rounds of ednescury unreasonableness.
ts of judicial review must always we worne in
aut
mind.
い
_ord eriyhthan emphasiseu
in Chief Constable of
A LR 1195, ot
not is concerned,
With the
kies Police v. Evans (1932) 2
1
نید
Judicial review Jecision, cut with the decision-making process. Unless that restriction on the power
tne Court is coservec, the court will
under the uise of preventing the abuse f swer, Je itself guilty of usurping power.'
י ה1
Lord Keith
ine following passage from the speech or Trave and Industry secretary, LA Parte coninc plc.
LR 525, at p.535 lays stress on the same point:
"The judgments of the Divisional Court illustrate the uanyer of judyės VIongly thouyn unconsciously substituting their own views for the views of the decision-maker who alone 15 charged and authorised by Parliament to exercise a discretion. The question is not whether the Secretary of State came to a correct solution or to a conclusion which meets with the approval of the Divisional Court but whether tne discretion was properly exercisea."
The impact of
the Judicial Service Commission Ordinance
The submissions pased upon the impact of the enactment of the Judicial service ordinance broadly were
that after the ordinance came into force on