由此 - 16 - A B powers that are specifically reserved to him under the Basic Law. In short, it seems to me that this court, if it was to make such a direction, would itself be in danger of acting unconstitutionally.” C D E 45. The 1st applicant described as paradoxical the judge’s refusal A B C D to order the Chief Executive to bring the IOC Ordinance into operation on E the ground that it would otherwise be in danger of acting F G unconstitutionally, but would grant a temporary stay of the declarations. F There is no paradox. The power to grant a temporary stay depends on the G jurisdiction of the court. If there is jurisdiction to do so, the court would H I J K be performing its proper constitutional role when it decides whether or not to exercise its jurisdiction. 46. Mr Dykes has further submitted that the Order is inconsistent with Article 160 “which prescribed the only consequences of discovered H I J K invalidity as being amendment of the relevant law or that law ceasing to L M have force.” However, in HKSAR v Hung Chan Wa and Another, CACC 411/2003, unreported 26 January 2006, in a different context but having L M equal application to the present situation, Stock JA, giving the judgment of N O P the court, explained that Article 160 has no application to judicial ‘discovery’ of contravention with the Basic Law. 47. Q R S T 48. N O Article 160 provided, that: P “If any laws are later discovered to be in contravention of this Law, they shall be amended or cease to have force in accordance with the procedure as prescribed by this Law.” Q What was envisaged by Article 160 were situations such as S R those in Article 17 of the Basic Law which expressly provides for the T U U V V