TNAG-2218-FCO40-3186-Constitutional-development-in-Hong-Kong-Letters-Patent-and-R-1991 — Page 26

CONFIDENTIAL

الا

Life Juuye erreu in rejecting the argument that once

the Governor had evinced his intention to

sub-delegate his power to appoint magistrates to the

Justice 1 was irrelevant that the minute by which the deleyalion was effected only referred to

the statutorY power of appointment and not the

Letters Patent power. This is because there was no

inconsistency between

two powers, the

Sun-ucleyalivil ulu not mave Lo De in writing in any

event and the intention to sub-delegate was clear:

the

Une Juuge wd5 wrong 111 noiding that the de facto judge doctrine did ποι assist the Crown in the

Vade

VIL

Cue

validity of

Dasib

Chat the allack Un ne

the magistrate's appointment was direct

and not a collateral one; and

141

しいた juage was wrong in quashing the magistrate's

decision

on

Respondents'

17 October 1990 refusing the application

LO slay the criminal

proceedings brought against them, and in not

applying

decision,

challenge

the

de facto judge doctrine to that

given that the Respondents failed to

the

validity of the magistrate's

appointment until long after the ruling had been

given.

These grounds may be amended or added to in due course.

U.

DULIL

Respondents

NOL ces in erfect repeat the arguments

which the Respondents pul before Kaplan J and thus need

SCL Oul αι Lengtη.

CONFIDENTIAL