Mr Stone
HKD
мить стара
FROM: Miss S Brooks
Legal Counsellor K199 270 3069
DATE: 25 March 1991
AMENDMENT TO LETTERS PATENT AND ROYAL INSTRUCTIONS
CENS
1. We spoke just now. In order to save time, I suggest below the substance of what might go in a telegram to Hong Kong in reply to their telegram- 876 of 21 March.
TUR.
"1.
We note your concerns set out in paragraph 6 of There does not appear to be any need to have provisions corresponding to (B) and to the second part of (A) ("or any law
these Letters Patent") as set out in your paragraph 6 in the amending Letters Patent. These amendments are presumably intended to cover methods E and D respectively (your paragraph 2). However, the power to make appointments by either method derives from the particular Ordinance and ultimately from Article VII of the Letters Patent and is in no way derived from Article XIV of the Letters Patent. Please reconsider these amendments in the light of the above and in the light of paragraph 4 of FCO telno 199 of 29 January 1991.
2. Your amendment set out in the first part of paragraph (A) ("by any person
under that Article") is acceptable. It would be improved however by adding "to the public service of Hong Kong" between the words "No appointment made"
and "before the coming in the chapter.
...
3. The longer version of your paragraph 8 is preferable to the shorter version in paragraph 7. But both these amendments state the obvious. Please also reconsider the need for these.
4.
Your paragraph 10 is noted. Letters Patent will be necessary.
Two separate amending
Shelagh Brooks.
S Brooks
انا
21
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.