Page
RESTRICTED
-
2 -
intended to protect the rights of others, viz, judgement creditors, Judge Downey considered that jurisdiction was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued because
5.
(a)
(b)
(c)
court's
enforcement of the prohibition order might involve
exercising the powers of arrest and imprisonment
in sub-section (7) and (8) of the same section
which would mean further possible impairment of
personal liberty;
the provision, unlike making an order under
subsection 1(b), did not require the presence of
probable cause for believing that the debtor's
departure from Hong Kong may obstruct or delay the
creditor; and
the facts that the granting of order was a matter
for judicial discretion and that it could not
endure for more than 3 months did not offer
adequate safeguards.
In response to the plaintiff's contention that the
power to declare that pre-existing legislation was
repealed could not be invoked in a purely civil disputes
between two private persons in view of s.7 BOR, Judge
Downey held
judicial review Of pre-existing
legislation was
that
a separate and distinct power conferred
upon the courts, and intended to be exercised in every case irrespective of the status or identity of the parties.
6.
the
The Director of Legal Aid who represents
Judgement creditor has lodged an appeal. The hearing was
set down for 11 November 1991.
Chambers
are
proceedings.
inclined not
The Attorney General's
to
get involved in the