Is it any surprise that the AAB wanted some answers? TARGET has obtained what it believes to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that misrepresentation was the
language of the day back in September 1987 when the AAB had to make a determination about the Synagogue.
Here is the evidence:
CONFIDENTIAL # 3
URGENTAL
From. Attorney General's....Chambers
Ref.
Tel. No.
in... AGC ADV 15/00C. (MS)
5-8622063
機密
BY HAND
о
(GUS CHUI)
To... Secretary for Municipal Services
(Attn.: Mrs. Ann Kingston)
Your Ref. (9) in MSB AM 125/1 III
Date
23 November 1987
dated
19.11.87
Ohel Leah Synagogue
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance Cap. 53
I refer to your memorandum of 19 November and attachments. You have asked for comments on a legal opinion provided by Henry Litton QC on the compensation provisions of the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance Cap. 53.
2.
I note that Mr. Litton was asked by an Antiquities Advisory Board member to provide the opinion as a result of your paper of 10 September to the Board ((45) in MSB AM 125/1 (II)) purporting to convey my legal advice on the compensation issue. I am most concerned that your paper extracted only a few general sentences from advice I gave you in three memoranda (29 June, 23 July and 7 September) totalling twelve pages, and as a result is completely unrepresentative of my advice. Moreover the paper appears to connect my advice with material that was not contained in my memoranda.
3.
It is worth noting that while as Chambers' client the ultimate decision is yours there should be no problem with your making our legal advice available to the Board. The Board is constituted as part of the scheme of the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance to advise you in your function as Authority under the Ordinance it will be better placed to perform that role if it is provided with all relevant information, including legal advice. In relation to that point, and given that part at least of the present difficulty has arisen from the fact that members were not fully acquainted with my earlier advice, may I suggest that it would be desirable and helpful to proceed in the following vay. That is, unless you provide the Board with our full legal advice, any paper which summarises the advice be referred for clearance by the author of the advice before it is presented to the Board.
4.
My comments on the main points in the opinion provided by Mr. Litton are set out in the separate accompanying memorandum.
Jon Rhett
(Michael Scott) Crown Counsel
c.c.
Crown Solicitor
CONFIDENTIAL ##
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.