KONAŤ melanO ORANJE
First, rather than advancing a systematic check
for conflicting legislation, a blanket freeze for such as
extended period is likely to postpone identification of
existing legislation that contravenes the Bill of Rights.
Difficulty in determining inconsistencies in the abstract
may arise without the benefit of specific factual contro-
versies presented after the Bill of Rights takes effect.
In addition, government officials and politicians may
have differing opinions on the extent to which existing
laws might conflict with the Bill of Rights and would
have no impetus to sharpen the debate and resolve the
inconsistencies.
Significantly, the two year freeze also would
serve to postpone court challenges providing judicial
review of existing legislation. On the other hand, early
opportunity for judicial interpretation of the Bill of
Rights would promote the development of standards for
human rights protection by building up a body of prece-
dent based on the Bill of Rights.
$
Neither of the Bills of Rights enacted by the
UK in Montserrat in January 1990 or in the Falkland Is-
lands a few years ago contained freeze periods for repeal
of inconsistent legislation. Both Bills of Rights for
those territories applied immediately to existing law
7