RESTRICTED 內部文件
2
(ii)
considered by the CA in SIN ́S CASE, DJ
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regarded as repealed.)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
insofar as it applies to Section 13(1) of Cap.
238 is not inconsistent with the BOR.
Massage Establishments Ordinance. Cap. 266
3.
ΙΠ a
similar decision to (ii) above, Magistrate
S J Geiser in R V WAN Yiu-MAT (NK 14046/91) ruled
(18.11.91) that Section 94A Criminal Procedure ordinance applied to Section 4(1), Cap. 266 (Managing an unlicensed massage establishment) and was not inconsistent with the
BOR (i.e. a licence was a defence the absence of such a
licence was not a matter that the Crown had to prove).
W
Summary offences Ordinance, Cap. 228
4.
In RV YIU Chi-fung (DC 397/91) Lugar-Mawson D J ruled (25.10.91) that possession of an offensive weapon "being unable to give a satisfactory account" was not inconsistent with the BOR (and even if it was prima facie inconsistent with the presumption of innocence in Article 11(1) BOR it was nevertheless valid as a reasonable and
>24
RESTRICTED 内部文件
3