CONFIDENTIAL
(E) THE 1949 REGULATIONS CONTAIN NO PROVISION WHATSOEVER AS
TO APPEALS NOTWITHSTANDING THE ENABLING PROVISION SET OUT ABOVE.
(F) SECTION 13 OF THE 1949 ACT, AS PRESENTLY EXTENDED, SETS OUT IN SUBSECTION (1)(C) AN IDENTICAL PROVISION FOR THE MAKING OF REGULATIONS AS TO APPEALS AS IS CONTAINED IN SECTION 5(1)(C) OF THE 1936 ACT. CLEARLY, THEN, A POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS AS TO APPEALS FROM THE LICENSING AUTHORITY DOES EXIST.
(G) NO DECISION HAS EVER BEEN TAKEN TO MAKE PROVISION FOR
SUCH APPEALS.
(11) THE PRESENT POSITION:
(A) DISCUSSIONS, ON AN INFORMAL BASIS, ARE PRESENTLY BEING HELD WITH A VIEW TO EXTENDING TO HONG KONG, BY ORDER IN COUNCIL, THE PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1971.IT IS INTNENDED, SHOULD APPROVAL BE OBTAINED, THAT THE EXTENDED ACT AND REGULATIONS MADE UNDER IT WOULD CONTAIN PROVISIONS FOR APPEALS TO THE GOVERNOR AND IN ADDITION, WOULD CONFER UPON THE GOVERNOR POWERS OF DIRECTION SIMILAR TO THOSE VESTED IN THE SECRETARY OF STATE. A FURTHER ROUND OF INFORMAL TALKS IS TO BE HELD IN HONG KONG IN THE PRESENT WEEK WITH MESSRS, ROBERTS (UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE) AND COLEGATE (CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY).
(B) THERE IS NO RIGHT OF APPEAL PROVIDED FOR IN THE 1949 REGULATIONS. THAT OMISSION WAS DELIBERATE, AS IS CLEAR FROM A 1949 CIRCULAR DESPATCH FROM MR. CREECH JONES:
(C) THE ONLY FURTHER POSSIBLE AVENUE FOR APPEAL APPEARS TO BE UNDER THE INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE (CAP. 1), IF APPLICABLE. I DO NOT CONSIDER THAT A RIGHT OF APPEAL IS THERE. PROVIDED, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (AA) CAP. 1 APPLIES TO THE PROVISIONS OF OTHER LEGISLATION ONLY WHERE NO CONTRARY INTENTION APPEARS IN SUCH LEGISLATION. THE FACT THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE A DELIBERATE OMISSION OF PROVISION FOR APPEAL SUGGESTS A CONTRARY INTENTION. (BB) THE REGULATIONS ARE MADE UNDER AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT: THEY ACCORD FINALITY TO A DECISION OF THE ATLA. TO CONFER A RIGHT OF APPEAL UNDER CAP. 1 WOULD BE TO DENY THE EFFECT OF THE REGULATIONS BY AN ORDINANCE MADE IN PURSUANCE OF PREROGATIVE LETTERS PATENT. THAT, I BELIEVE, IS NOT WITHIN THE POWERS OF THE HONG KONG LEGISLATURE. (CC) SECTION 64 OF CAP. 1 DEALS SPECIFICALLY WITH RIGHTS OF APPEAL TO THE GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL (NOT TO THE GOVERNOR) WHERE ANY ORDINANCE CONFERS A RIGHT OF APPEAL OR OBJECTION TO THE GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL''. NO RIGHT OF APPEAL EXISTS UNDER THE REGULATIONS. IN LATER SUBSECTION OF SECTION 64 REFERENCE IS MADE TO APPEALS OR OBJECTIONS TO THE GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL (WHETHER BY WAY OF PETITION OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER SUCH APPEAL IS MADE BY VIRTUE OF ANY ORDINANCE OR OTHER- WISE''. THE RIGHTS WHICH EXIST UNDER THE COLONIAL
REGULATIONS ARE RIGHTS TO PETITION THE GOVERNOR AND NOT THE GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL. ACCORDINGLY THE POWERS CONFERRED BY SECTION 64
OF CAP. 1, EVEN IF CAP. 1 WERE OTHERWISE APPLICABLE TO DECISIONS
-
2
-
CONFIDENTIAL
/ BY ATLA UNDER
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.