TNAG-2219-FCO40-3187-Constitutional-development-in-Hong-Kong-Letters-Patent-and-R-1991 — Page 50

15-MAT-1991

זו

37

in minu at the relevant timê.

with very great

what the

Governor nau

judye, it seems to me very clear respect to the

that has power to appoint Governor had in ming should henceforth be delegated to the Chief Justice.

-

Pagistrates

as

Having regard to what was

such

salu in authorities De Keyser's Royal Hotel and the CCSU case cited above, it seems to me that once one of the Governor's Letters Patent powers pas vecome reflected in and regulated by e local

is that power which as being celegated, ther statute,

is handed over, no longer the untrammelled power which

by the statutory provision ut the power as affectes

the appropriate "signpost" in the

is

that

*.ne

Powers

anc

magistrates Ordinance.

SO

inute was indeed s. Certainly the Article XIV

Cistinct powers,

anc

Observations in the

and the s. powers were not SWO

Lord Farmoor 'o 015 was common groune.

KC Je revser's Hoval Hotel case 18201 K DJ, at p.57 iends Support to that approach:

that ..nen the

with the

ceen

"The constitutional principle power of the Executive to interiere property or liberty of subjects has

anc Contro1, Pärlistentor. placed under

the executive directly regulated by statute no longer derives its authority from the Royal

from Parliament, the Crown but Prerogative of

tne

and that in exercising such authority executive is bound to observe the restrictions

favour of the which Parliament ras imposed subject."

1t was

sein, velegateu it matter that a reference to Articl was omitted. I do not think

Since it may, However, we that as transparently obvious what power as Cannot, in my judyment, XIV, if that were necessary; that even complete silence as to the source of the power would have invalidated such a deliberate and unambiguous veleyation.

I do not accept that the matter was dealt with

The court was not be "casual" manner by Lord MacLenose. "forced to speculate";

there were no unresolvaple