RESTRICTED
BILL OF RIGHTS
SIGNIFICANT COURT DECISIONS
JANUARY 1992
Annex A
Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134
In SIN Yau-ming (HC 289/90) the Court of Appeal ruled on 30 September 1991 that the following presumptions had been repealed by the Bill of Rights on its commencement
date (8 June 1991):- Sections 46(c) and (d), 47(1)(c) and
(d) and (3).
Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap. 238
In R v TAU Ting-man (DC 222/91) Deputy Judge
Eccleton ruled on 15 November 1991 that:-
2.
(i)
(ii)
the presumptions in Section 24 of Cap. 238 were
repealed by the Bill of Rights. (Given that the
presumptions are in very similar terms to those
considered by the Court of Appeal in SIN'S CASE, Deputy Judge Eccleton's ruling was not appealed, and accordingly Section 24 of Cap. 238 is now
regarded as repealed.)
Section 94A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance,
Cap. 221 (negative averments) applied to Section
13(1) of Cap. 238 with the result that the Crown
does not have to prove a person in possession of
a firearm or ammunition etc. is not the holder
of a valid licence. It is a defence for the
accused to prove that he had a valid licence at
the relevant date. The effect of Section 94A
RESTRICTED