由此 - 30 - A B C application for a stay on this basis. In any event, there was no appeal so far as the second declaration was concerned so no stay pending appeal A B C could have been made in relation to section 33. D E D 95. We are of the view that the judge has jurisdiction to make the E Order. The making of the Order was an exercise of discretion. We see no F G reason to interfere. In any event, on the basis that the maintenance of the rule of law requires it, we would have exercised our discretion in the same F G way. H I H 96. The appeal by the 1st and 2nd applicants is dismissed. 97. At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal, the parties J K asked us to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and to certify I J K the following as question of great general public importance: L L “1. Does the Law Enforcement (Covert Surveillance) Order published on 5 August 2005 comprise or contain ‘legal procedures’ within the meaning of those words as they appear in Article 30 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region? M N 2. O P Where a court declares or otherwise makes a finding that a law is not consistent with one or more articles of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, can the court suspend the effect of its declaration or order it makes consequent upon such finding?” Q N O P Q 98. We were also asked to dispense with a Notice of Motion under R section 24(1) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, S M Cap. 484 (“HKCFAO”) and to impose no conditions under section 25 of R S HKCFAO other than that the Appellant in the Court of Final Appeal T T U U V V