Ref
Tel. No.
Date
се
یلا
Secretary for Constitutional
in
Affairs
B3/11/10
MEMO
To
Minul k
Political Adviser (Attn : Mr S. Bradley)
810 2048
Your Ref.
in
9 October 1991
dated
ce. The Coff, HKD Fro
POLITICAL ADVISERS
9/0303 9110791
*. CQYERN
Ms Barrett
Stevie Bradly
Teite 12
по пісалал
To consider please tunk Legal Adures
Court decisions arising from
the Bill of Rights
D
Do the Chinese have legitimate grounds for concen
Further to my memo of 28 September 1991 in this series to you, I have updated my note summarising recent BOR-related court cases. A copy is enclosed. You are of course aware that the Court of Appeal's judge- ment concerning presumption provisions in the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance has far-reaching implications on presumption provisions in other ordinances. In essence,
the Court held the view that presumptions were themselves contrary to the BOR but that they should be subject to a stringent test of rationality and reason- ableness. (see para 13 of my note).
2.
I have not attached the 69-page judgement to to this memo but in case you or UKREP JLG are interested in the detail, I can make a copy for you.
OFFICE
ENT SEE RETARIAT
आप
(John CY Leung)
for Secretary for Constitutional Affairs
M
187x
c.c. UKREP JLG (Attn: Mr C. Garrett)
3.F. 3C
CONFIDENTIAL #3