TNAG-2219-FCO40-3187-Constitutional-development-in-Hong-Kong-Letters-Patent-and-R-1991 — Page 41

MA15ST 76-18

DIRECTOR OF ADM.

852 877 0802 P.30

28

dismissals which the Governor cannot effect personally

because of their volume, can we undertaken by persons ne

authorises by devolution so that they remain his acts 111 law. It seems to me unrealistic to expect that the Governor could effectively retain the responsivility for all

appointments and visassals in the entire cavil service

which the application of that principle requires unless it

15 to we complete fiction.

If this conclusion is riunt, in my judgment it

would be quite wrong for the courts to attempt, in effect,

to dictate to the Governor in respect of which offices in

Articles XIV and XVI he can and cannot delegate the power to

appoint and

$15.155. it is a matter

Matter for the political

quayment of the Governor. It is not right to suggest that

the courts could declare that the Governor may delegate the

power to appoint, say, only public officers below a certain

rank, or all public officers except judicial officers. It

an

!

S not for the courts to uraw such jemarcation lines.

sention here that it seems to me that this would pe

eminently suitable task, where appropriate, for the Governor, with the auvice and consent of the Legislative

Council, to undertake under Article VII if he 15 not

exercisin has NOWERS irectly under Article xiv.

Is the power to appoint under S.J of the wayistrates ordinance elegable?

Before I acuress this issue, I would opserve that I accept the proposition that if the Governor cannot lawfully delegate his Article XIV powers in relation to the appointment of magistrates, ne cannot do so under the authority of a local statute for any such provision would be repugnant to the Letters Patent.

In my view, the expression in his opinion" which occurs in s.5(1) is no impediment in itself to a lawful