TNAG-2218-FCO40-3186-Constitutional-development-in-Hong-Kong-Letters-Patent-and-R-1991 — Page 33

000

GOVERNMENT HUUSE

HUNG KUNG

4-23

CONFIDENTIAL

(d)

Laere was

no inconsistency between Section 5 and the said Article XIV;

12.

сле

sala

(b) it was Common ground

that

the

said

sub-delegation need not be in writing and could

be made orally; and

(c) the intention to sub-delegate was clear.

and

(6) The Learned judge erred in holding that because the

been Respondents have not

trial nave been given leave to challenge the magistrate's

review on Judicial

aecision

by

for committed

grounds

Which

include an attack on the magistrate's appointment,

he

could

collateral

conclude noc

chat the said attack is

and that the de facto judge doctrine

could not assist on Crown.

い

ine

Learned Juage errea 1л

Law

quashing

S

the

the

ground

decision made

eacondents' application

DICUCI.C aya b

facto Juage

Chat

the Respondents

appointment

ان

on 17th October 1990 refusing

to stay the CX Chem 2.14

미

doctrine when 1t was common

never challengea

the

as

a

MI.

Line

val----! UL the permanent magistrate until long after he had given the said ruling against them.

FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the Appellant reserves the right to amend or add to the above stated grounds of appeal.

CONFIDENTIAL