TNAG-2218-FCO40-3186-Constitutional-development-in-Hong-Kong-Letters-Patent-and-R-1991 — Page 142

CONFIDENTIAL

007 07

MDHIAN 79

YOUR TELNO 199 REFERS. WE TEND TO AGREE WITH YOUR REASONING. HOWEVER WITH THE UNCERTAINTY CAUSED BY THE JUDICIAL REVIEW AND IN ORDER TO SET OUT OUR PERCEIVED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARTICLE VII AND ARTICLE XIV MORE CLEARLY, WE PROPOSE THAT FURTHER AMENDMENTS SHOULD BE INTRODUCED TO ARTICLE XIV BEYOND THOSE WE HAVE

ORIGINALLY ENVISAGED.

5. OUR REQUIREMENTS THEREFORE APPEAR TO BE :

(A) TO MAKE EXPRESS PROVISION TO ENABLE THE GOVERNOR TO DELEGATE, EXCEPT FOR THE MOST SENIOR PUBLIC OFFICERS AND SUPREME COURT AND DISTRICT COURT JUDGES, HIS POWERS OF APPOINTMENT UNDER ARTICLE XIV:

(B) TO PROVIDE FOR A VALIDATION PROVISION IN RESPECT APPOINTMENTS MADE BY METHODS (C), (D) AND (E) ABOVE FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF

DOUBT:

(C) TO BRING OUT THE INDEPENDENT POWERS OF APPOINTMENT WHICH MAY BE CREATED THROUGH AN ORDINANCE UNDER ARTICLE VII: AND

(D) TO SET OUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARTICLE VII AND ARTICLE

XIV.

6. AGAINST THIS BACKGROUND, WE ARE CONTENT THAT ARTICLE 3(1)(B) OF THE AMENDING LP AS PRESENTLY DRAFTED DEALS ADEQUATELY WITH REQUIREMENT 5(A). HOWEVER, ARTICLE 3(2) AS PRESENTLY DRAFTED DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE ADDRESSED THE REST OF REQUIREMENTS. ALSO FROM A DRAFTING POINT OF VIEW, WE HAVE RESERVATION ABOUT THE DESIRABILITY OF MAKING ANY REFERENCE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL DOCUMENT TO A SPECIFIC PROVISION OF A DOMESTIC LAW. WE WOULD THEREFORE LIKE TO PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING ALTERNATIVE FOR

CONSIDERATION:

to the printing serce Mans Kany

''NO APPOINTMENT MADE, BEFORE THE COMING INTO OPERATION OF THE HONG KONG LETTERS PATENT 1991 -

SA BY ANY PERSON TO WHOM A POWER OF APPOINTMENT CONFERRED UNDER

ARTICLE XIV OF THE PRINCIPAL LETTERS PATENT WAS PURPORTEDLY DELEGATED UNDER THAT ARTICLE OR ANY LAW MADE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE

VII OF THOSE LETTERS PATENT: OR

(B) IN THE EXERCISE OF A POWER CONFERRED BY ANY LAW MADE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE VII OF THE PRINCIPAL LETTERS PATENT,

2

PAGE

CONFIDENTIAL