RESTRICTED
5 -
only after conviction when the presumption of innocence
stops). In R v TSANG Hing-man (NK 11915/91) Magistrate Tanzer (24 December 1991) upheld the presumptions in
ss.19(1)(a) and (c) and 19(2) of the Ordinance.
magistrate is to rule on the same presumptions on 23 January 1992.
Another
Road Traffic (Driving Offences Points) Ordinance, Cap. 375
11.
In R v WAN Kit-man (WTS 25484/91) Magistrate Tanzer upheld (28 November 1991) the continuing validity under the Bill of Rights of disqualification under the Road Traffic (Driving Offences Points) Ordinance. It was held that such disqualification was not "punishment." within the meaning of Article 11(6) of the Bill of Rights and nothing in Article 11(6) prohibits multiple penal consequences flowing from a single act, nor is there a "final" disposition of a traffic infringement until expiry of the relevant 2 year period. Accordingly, disqualification
under Cap. 375 was not "double punishment".
Trade Descriptions Ordinance, Cap. 375
12.
In R v LEE Ping-yau (FL 3280/91) Magistrate Venning held (12 December 1991) that section 12 (2) of the Trade Descriptions Ordinance ("due diligence" defence to a charge of importing counterfeit goods) was not inconsistent with Article 11(1) of the Bill of Rights.
Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245
13.
In R v YU Chi-lun (KT 5373/91) Magistrate Saunders held that section 33 Public Order Ordinance. (Possession of offence weapon in public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse) is not in consistent
with Articles 11(1) and 11(2) (g). In R v LAU Po-tung (CA 375/91), listed for 7 February 1992, the Court of Appeal
RESTRICTED