RESTRICTED
2
insofar as it applies to Section 13 (1) of Cap. 238 is not inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.
Massage Establishments Ordinance, Cap. 266
3.
In a similar decision to (ii) above, Magistrate SJ Geiser in R v WAN Yiu-man (NK 14046/91) ruled (18
November 1991) that Section 94A Criminal Procedure Ordinance applied to Section 4(1), Cap. 266 (Managing an unlicensed massage establishment) and was not inconsistent with the Bill of Rights (i.e. a licence was a defence the absence of such a licence was not a matter that the Crown had to prove).
Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap. 228
Section 17 (possession of offensive weapon)
4.
In R v YIU Chi-fung (DC 397/91) District Judge Lugar-Mawson ruled (25 October 1991) that possession of an offensive weapon "being unable to give a satisfactory account" was not inconsistent with the Bill of Rights (and even if it was prima facie inconsistent with the presumption of innocence in Article 11(1) it was nevertheless valid as a reasonable and justified limitation on a Bill of Rights guarantee). In R v LAM Yue-kee (CA 408/91), listed for 5 and 6 March 1992, the Court of Appeal will be invited to declare Section 17 of Cap. 228 repealed as contrary to the Bill of Rights. However, the Crown will not be supporting the conviction (on the facts) and the Bill of Rights issue is unlikely to be considered.
RESTRICTED