TNAG-1366-FCO40-1812-Hong-Kong-Legislative-Council-(Powers-and-Privileges)-Bill-1-1985 — Page 142

-

6 -

with its constitutional powers; in the same way it must retain power over its own affairs and proceedings.

24

Having said that, there is nothing in clause that would prevent a person challenging in the Courts an unlawful exercise of powers. Indeed the most fundamental question that could be asked whether any such power which the Council or its President or officers purported to exercise under the Bill was indeed SO conferred by the Bill. It is plain on a fair reading of clause 24 that questions of that sort are not excluded from the purview of the Courts, subject only to clauses 3 and 4. But once it is clear that what was done was done in exercise of a power conferred by the Bill or by the Standing Orders, clause 24 would operate to

to prevent the Courts giving any kind of directions or guidelines or laying down rules purporting to regulate the way in which the power should or should not be used. That is the sole purpose and effect of the clause.

I cannot therefore support the suggestion that clause 24 be deleted from the Bill. However the

Administration accepts that the intention behind clause 24 may not have been adequately expressed in

the Bill as published. An amendment to be tabled will

make it clear that this clause deals with the "lawful", the "lawful" exercise of any power conferred

under the Ordinance on the Standing Orders of the Council. The insertion of the word "lawful" has some significance in law because it opens the exercise of powers to judicial review and if the courts

courts decided that these powers had not been exercised lawfully the immunities conferred by this clause would not apply. Similarly the Administration proposes to amend clause

17(a) to make it clear that this is concerned with the

disobedience of any lawful order.