r
8
Freeze Period
17. There seems to be a consistent view among the representations that the proposed freeze period of two years is not acceptable. The reasons include a wish to see the Bill of Rights to take effect for the redress of grievances as soon as possible, the importance of accumulating judicial experience of the Bill as quickly as possible, and the disadvantages of suspending most of the effectiveness of such an important piece of legislation for so long after the legislation has been enacted. The Ad Hoc Group notes the Administration's wish to avoid the creation of "legislative vacuums", where provisions in existing legislation that are inconsistent with the Bill of Rights are identified and struck down by the courts with no immediate replacement. The Group also accepts, from the research produced by the Legal Working Group, that there is a large body of existing legislation that would probably need amendment for it to be consistent with the Bill of Rights and that time would be needed for workable amendments to be drafted and enacted. The Group nonetheless shares the reservations about the freeze period expressed in most of the representations and is concerned that, under a general freeze, much legislation that might be profitably tested in the courts to the advantage of the individual who considers that his rights may have been violated, and at no disadvantage to society in general, would remain frozen.
18. Some representations have advocated that there should be no freeze period at all and that the Bill, once enacted, should be allowed to take effect immediately. Others have suggested that the freeze period should be shortened so that the Bill will be in force as soon as possible while the Administration would still have time to review some of the existing ordinances. One Group has suggested that during a one-year freeze period members of the public could use the Bill of Rights for defence purposes but could not sue on it. Another group recommends a one-year freeze of the bill with respect to specified provisions in specified pieces of legislation to be set out in a schedule to the Bill. It further recommends that prosecution in respect of any offence created by provisions listed in the schedule should only be initiated with the consent of the Attorney General. A third organisation, on the other hand, prefers the freeze period to be applied only in respect of legislation and administrative practices concerning the application of such principles as freedom from discrimination and the onus of proof provisions. The organisation believes that LegCo should reject any suggestion that a freeze period is needed for the removal of unjustifiable "restrictions".
19.
The Ad Hoc Group has put the proposal of a partial freeze to the Administration. The Administration's view is that it would be imprudent to adopt such a course since it is impossible to guarantee that even ordinances which, prima facie, appear unlikely to offend the Bill of Rights, would be
: