TNAG-2218-FCO40-3186-Constitutional-development-in-Hong-Kong-Letters-Patent-and-R-1991 — Page 70

22-APR-1991 17:11

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS BR

852 840 1976

P.16

vires

(Ratnayopai v. A.G. (1970) A.C. 974).

that the words i

I am quite satisfieu nowever his opinion' celate solely to the number of mayistrates required for the efficient administration of justice ana

Keane's argument thus these words do not assiut Mṛ.

As to section 63 of Cap. 1, Hr. Keane sidesteps this quite simply by saying that it only relates to powers or auties conferrea by Ordinance and what is in issue hero is whether there has been a velayation of. powers pursuant to the Letters Patent. In any event, he says that secciún

fx 63 aoes not apply where a contrary intention appears the context of any other Oruinance or Instrument, and such a contrary intention appears from the Letters Patent, section 5 of the Magistrates Oruinance and the Judicial Services Commission Ordinance, Cap. w2.

The Judicial Services Commission Ordinanca, Ca. 92

The

AL

Zecommendation.

Servicês Commission

Mr. Keane submits that the continuation of the purporteu delegation to the Chief Justica after Peuruary 1974 when Cap. 92 was enacted would be inconsistent with

that Oruinance. The Chief the requirements. imposed by Justice is the chairman of the Judicial Services Commission. The Judicial Services Commission is chargeu witn making recommendations to the Governor in respect, inter alia, of the appointment of magistrates. Governor is not bound to accept the relevant time in 1936, the Judicial had to be unanimous. If the delegation to the Chief

was lawful one coula, Justice in respect of "mayistrates says Mx. Keane, have the unlikely, but technically possible, scenario of the Judicial Services Commission unanimously recommending A to the Governor and then the C.J., acting under the purporteu delegation from the Governor, ignoring the recommendation to whien he party and appointing instead X. Mr. Lee accepts that this

Keane, says Mr. is a theoretical possibility. that the whole scheme of the Judicial Services Commission Ordinance is quite inconsistent with there being a lawful deleyation from the Governor to the Chief Justice.

+

This,

was a

SAGWS

น

I can see this argument having some relevance to the appointment by the Chief Justice under section 5 of the vayistrates Ordinance when read wicn section 03 of Cay. Dur I do not see how it helps on the construction of Article XIV of the Letters Patent. Cay. 92 was enacted

amenculents to Article XIV and I wo suoséquent to the 1971 not see how this

this later piece or local legislation can we used to limit the ambit of Article XIV. I should rufer to

AI'd 0490 698 269

12:21 22-PQ-1661

TOTAL P..16