TNAG-0943-FCO40-1162-Future-of-Hong-Kong-1980 — Page 65

4

That before the Letters Fatent of 20th July 1764 the

Vind had precluded himself from legislative authority

Over the island of Grenada.

.....we therefore

think . . . . . . ...the King had immediately and irrevocably granted........that the subordinate legislation.

บ

.should be exercised by an Assembly......

11

* t

Lee also Abeyesekera v. Jayatalike 1932 AC 260 at 264;

also Roberts-Wray at p.157 et seq.

The Courts are entitled of course, as in the above cases,

to consider and rule whether or not any powers exercised fall within the terms of the Orders in Council said to empower them. The present question therefore is whether in the N.T. Order in Council 1898 on its true construction the Crown limited in any way its

powers over the N.T.

That Order in Council, after reciting that a Convention

has "enlarged under lease" the limits of British Territory,

provided by Articles 1 and 2 as follows:

"1.

The territories within the limits and for the

term described in the said Convention shall be.....

part and parcel of H.M.'s Colony of Hong Kong.

2. It shall be competent for the Governor of

Hong Kong.

to make laws for the peace,

order and good government of the said territories

as part of the Colony.

ff

The true construction of these Articles in my opinion

gives the power of legislation over the N.T. "as part of the Colony" only so long as it so remains i.e. "for the term described in the Convention"; the Convention expressly provides that the term ends on 8th June 1997. The Crown has thus in my view claimed only a limited jurisdiction (in time) over the N.T.

Furthermore, so far as the grant of land is concerned,

the position is governed by article XIII of the Letters Patent

under which: