I can get behind the wording, but I assure you that there'd be discontentment in the Assembly over this. That being said, I suggest the wording below for whether what the Chair of the Assembly did was appropriate (modified from GB's response to the issue):

In response to whether the Chair of the Assembly's delaying of the vote was in breach of the law, while the Court understands and acknowledges that some parties are frustrated that a draft, having received a motion and a second, still took some time to be placed a vote, the Court notes that the Chair of the Assembly was upfront about his reasoning for delaying the vote, stating that he felt more time was needed before the Assembly could adequately and objectively discuss the proposal.. It is in the Court's opinion that the delaying of the vote was actually him appropriately fulfilling his duties as the Chair of the Assembly.

With regards to the issue of punishment and legal ramifications, the Court is unable to render a judgement as the misuse of authority is not a criminal offence, of which are defined in Articles 5 and 6 of the Code of Laws, in the Penal and Criminal Code. Furthermore, no legal proceedings have been initiated against the Chair of the Assembly. It is in the Court's opinion that other appropriate channels, such as the initiating of a recall motion be sought instead.

The Court further acknowledges that this judgement is in contradiction with a previous judgement, HCLQ1407, and has resolved to partially overturn the judgement, as reflected below:

Quote:"As the Chair is responsible for the passage of legislation, in this case contradictory or otherwise, personal discretion or executive policy should not apply as this may obstruct the passage of legislation, thus preventing the Chair from fulfilling legal obligations in the discharge and execution of his duties."

will be amended to

"The Chair may exercise personal discretion in the movement of legislation where appropriate, with an explanation being provided to the Assembly. However, it is maintained that all legislation that has been motioned and seconded must be voted upon, unless withdrawn by the drafter, or wherein new Laws have been passed by the Assembly that result in the change of circumstances."

In light of this Legal Question, The High Court recommends that the Assembly examine Article 3, Section 2 of the Charter and clearly define what, if any, Discretionary Powers the Chair of the Assembly should posses.