TNAG-2219-FCO40-3187-Constitutional-development-in-Hong-Kong-Letters-Patent-and-R-1991 — Page 23

15-MAY-1991 16:06

DIRECTOR OF ADM.

852 877 0802

P.12

10

2960 which appeared in the Gazette of

:t

It read

the

th September 1988, and notified the revocation of a

an exercise of Magistrate's appoint rent. powers conferred by 5.5 cr the mayıstrates Ordinance and deleyated by s.63 of [Cap.il the Chief Justice nas revoked

For this

reason aru (a) because

Jelegation nau ever been published and

no instrument of

there was no

{7}

evidence of any communication of the power of appointment from the Governor to the Chier Justice, it was said that the „resumption or delegation pursuant to s.53 or Cap. 1 nau

Deen telutteu.

Iunctions

no

Counsel had accepted that it was Jota necessary and roper for the Governor to Jelegate certain of his

to secretaries wut, it had been to Heads of Department anu argued that this general power did not extend to the power to appoint judicial officers. under Article XIV Magistrates held their offices during Her Majesty's pleasure and machinery or authority to revoxe a magistrate's warrant ween provideu sitnouyn there

an oblique reference nás

revocation in S 5(5) of the magistrates Ordinance. royal Instructions or another instrument or equal standing permitted it, the formation or signification of Her

ajesty's pleasure could not De celegateu beyonu the

Governor.

10

nad

Unless

The cismissal power was not seleyable ana power of appointment was so intertwineu with the power of

to render repugnant any local law which

dismissai

as

urported to delegate eitner of these powers.

Counsel for the Chius had also drawn support for their submissions from the Judicial Service Comminission Ordinance, Cap. 92. They submitted that it imposed by s.bl a duty on the Commission to advise the Governor, inter alia, "regarding the tilling of judicial offices"; magistrates were included in this category. It was argued that these provisions confirmed, by necessary implication, that the