CO129-444 - Governor Sir May & Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1917 [10-12] — Page 161

-3-

157

6.

Section 4 deals with the longer form of procedure.

Section

4 (1) places within the discretion of the Governor in Council the question as to whether the proposed de portes is liable to depor- tation and should be deported. Section 4(2) provides that

no steps other than those expressly specified in the section

shall be necessary.

This is intended to meet arguments drawn

from the procedure of criminal trials, for example a suggestion

that the deportee was entitled to be heard by counsel before the

Governor in Council. Section 4(11) practically repeats the

wording of section 4(1) and of section 13.

7. Though the present Ordinance may be more explicit on this

point of absolute discretion, it is thought that it does not in-

troduce any change in the law in this direction, It has

always been be lieved that the same absolute power was implied in

the provisions of the former Deportation Ordinances, and in the

case of Re Lo Tsun Man, (1910) 5 H.K.L.R. 166, it was held by

the Full Court that the power of the Governor in Council under

the Banishment and Conditional Pardons Ordinance, 1882, was

absolute, and that the Court had no power to review his decision,

It need hardly be said that this absolute power must be exercised

in a judicial way, and its very absolute nature is an additional

reason for avoiding any arbitrary or unreasonable action,

8. Section 4 (3) is intended to exclude any defence analogous

to that of autrefois acquit.

9.

Section 4(14) (a) (b) and (c) make it passible to deport

persons guilty of the offences or misconduct therein specified

whatever the nationality may be of such persons,

10.