由此 - 29 - A B C 91. In Ha v State of New South Wales [1997] 189 CLR 465, the High Court of Australia was unanimous that the court had no power to A B C overrule cases prospectively. It said at 504: D “… If an earlier case is erroneous and it is necessary to overrule it, it would be a perversion of judicial power to maintain in force that which is acknowledged not to be the law.” E F G 92. Ha was concerned with a state law imposing tobacco wholesalers’ and retailers’ licence fees and the issue was whether the D E F G licence fees were duties of excise within section 90 of the constitution and H I fell within the exclusive power of the Commonwealth Parliament. It held by a majority that they were. Ha was not concerned with the question H I whether there was jurisdiction to recognise as temporarily valid otherwise J invalid laws or acts in order to preserve the rule of law. So we do not K regard it as an authority against making the Order. Lord Hope of J K Craighead in Spectrum at para. 68 said he did not think Ha could be taken L as the last word on this issue. M N L M 93. It was also tentatively suggested that since a stay of the effect N of the declaration was possible pending appeal, it was unnecessary for the O P Q R judge to make the Order. He could have stayed the declarations pending O appeal. P 94. When important constitutional points are involved, and where Q it is legitimate for the parties to want a determination by the Court of Final R Appeal, it may be that the court can stay the effect of the declarations S T pending appeal. If the judge had stayed the 1st declaration pending appeal, it seems that Mr Dykes would not complain. However, there was no S T U U V V