TNAG-0943-FCO40-1162-Future-of-Hong-Kong-1980 — Page 64

gu"trr“བ ཏྠ ལྡམ་ལ* *#ན- སན སཐཱ,,

ts

It is well settled both in Hong Kong and the United

the earts will not construe treaties etc. in order

uether jurisdiction claimed by the Crown is properly

"The Courts themselves will not mark out the limits (of jurisdiction claimed). They will not examine the treaty or grant..... ..The Courts rely on the representatives of the Crown to know the limits of its jurisdiction and keep within it. Once jurisdiction is exercised by the Crown the Courts will not permit it to be challenged.........we must look not at the agreement with the Sultan but at the Orders in Council.... so as to see what jurisdiction the Crown has in fact exercised.. per Denning L.J. Nyali Ltd. v. Attorney General 1956 1 QB 1 at 15; see also In re Wong Hon 1959

Je umemtalentet wurde idademben)APEL

ह +

they are conclusive" :

27 Internat L.R.49, a Hong Kong case relating to the Crown's jurisdiction over Kowloon City; Subhuya II's case at 523;

Is Legislation Necessary?

•

The Crown is entitled to claim if it so wishes at any time only limited jurisdiction; indeed there is old Privy Council authority that if the Crown relinquishes its prerogative jurisdiction without reserving the residual power to legislate, then the jurisdiction is irrevocably lost. In Campbell v. Hall 1774 1 Cou p204 Lord Mansfield (in a case where by Letters Patent of 1764 the Crown attempted to impose an export tax after having previously agreed in 1763 by Letters Patent to set up a Legislative Assembly, without having reserved to the Crown therein the residual power to legislate)

said:

"The second point (argued) is that though the King had sufficient power and authority before 7th October 1763 to do such legislative act, yet before the Letters Patent of 20th July 1764 he had divested himself of that authority:.......But upon the second point after full consideration we are of the opinion