Tung Chee-hwa has been wrongly advised by government lawyers that the Crown had immunity from Hong Kong laws and that immunity could be transferred to the state, the Bar Association says. In a submission on the law adaptation furore, association spokesman Anthony Watson-Brown said the Crown had no right not to be bound by legislation. Although section 66 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance presumed legislation did not apply to the Crown, such acquiescence did not mean the Crown had the right not to be bound by the laws, he said. Concerns have been raised that the replacement of the Crown by the state, which also includes subordinate organs of the central Government, will exempt Chinese officials from local laws. Mr Watson-Brown said the Crown lost the right to exemption almost 300 years ago and had had no such right during colonial rule in Hong Kong. He said officials wrongly believed such a right existed and advised the Chief Executive and the Executive Council that it could be adapted after the handover. He said Section 66 should not have survived the handover because it contradicted Basic Law Article 22, which stipulates state organs and their personnel should abide by Hong Kong laws. 'The old section 66 could not be adapted as it was over-ridden by Article 22,' Mr Watson-Brown said. 'Unfortunately the recent amendments to section 66 were made on the basis of a misrepresentation . . . not by the CE or Exco, but by the Law Officers in the Justice Department.'