RESTRICTED 內部文件
5
Gambling Ordinance, Cap. 148
11.
In
R V NG Chi-keung (SK 9767) Mag. Davies ruled that the presumption in s.19(4) of the Gambling Ordinance (relating to forfeiture of money presumed to be used for unlawful gambling) is not affected by Article 11(1) of the BOR (since it arises only after conviction when the presumption of innocence stops).
12.
In R v TSANG Hing-man (NK 11915/91) Mag. Tanzer upheld the presumptions in ss.19(1)(a) and (c) and 19(2) of the Ordinance.
Road Traffic (Driving Offences Points) Ordinance, Cap. 375
13.
In
RV WAN
WAN Kit-man (WTS 25484/91) Mag. Tanzer upheld the continuing validity under the
BOR of disqualification under the RT (Driving Offences Points) Ordinance. It was held that such disqualification was not "punishment" within the meaning of Article 11(6) BOR 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
relevant 2 year period.
Accordingly, disqualification under Cap. 375 was not "double punishment".
of the
Trade Descriptions Ordinance, Cap. 375
14.
In R
LEE Ping-vau (FL 3280/91) Mag. Venning held 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)
BOR.
RESTRICTED 内部文件
6