WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 1985
13
+ IT IS THEREFORE BY NO MEANS CERTAIN THAT, IN VIEW OF THE WORDING OF SECTION 56(1), A REHEARING CAN BE ORDERED BY THE GOVERNOR IN RESPECT OF THE OSPREY CASE EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS, IN FACT, AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE CONDUCT OF A HOLDER OF A CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING,+ HE SAID.
THE BILL BEFORE THE COUNCIL PROPOSED TO AMEND THE PRINCIPAL ORDINANCE TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE GOVERNOR MAY ORDER THE REHEARING OF AN INVESTIGATION BY A MARINE COURT INTO THE CASUALTY AFFECTING A SHIP.
UMELCO HAD RECEIVED ONE WRITTEN REPRESENTATION REGARDING THE RETROSPECTIVE ASPECT OF THE BILL, WHICH MR WONG BELIEVED IN ANY EVENT DESERVED CAREFUL EXAMINATION.
THE UNOFFICIALS' GROUP STUDYING THE BILL MET THE ADMINISTRATION TWICE AND AFTER CAREFUL DELIBERATION THEY WERE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY THE ADMINISTRATION IN RESPECT OF THE RETROSPECTIVE ELEMENT.
ELABORATING, MR WONG SAID THERE IS NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT TO MAKING AN AMENDMENT APPLY TO PROCEEDINGS ALREADY COMMENCED OR COMPLETED.
+ THE REAL ISSUE IS WHETHER IT IS REASONABLE TO DO SO.+
GENERALLY SPEAKING, HE SAID, RETROSPECTIVE LAWS OFFENDED AGAINST THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT LEGISLATION INTENDED TO REGULATE HUMAN CONDUCT OUGHT TO DEAL WITH FUTURE ACTS AND OUGHT NOT TO CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF PAST TRANSACTIONS CARRIED ON UPON THE FAITH OF THE THEN EXISTING LAW,
AS REGARDS CRIMINAL OFFENCES, RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION WAS NEVER GIVEN TO A STATUTE, HE SAID.
+ IT SHOCKS ONE'S SENSE OF JUSTICE THAT AN ACT LEGAL AT THE TIME OF DOING IT SHOULD BE MADE CRIMINAL BY A NEW ENACTMENT.
+LIKEWISE, IT IS EQUALLY UNJUST IF A NEW LAW CONVERTS AN ACT WRONGFULLY DONE AT THE TIME INTO A LEGAL ACT IN SUCH A WAY THAT A PERSON INJURED BY THAT ACT IS DEPRIVED OF HIS REMEDY,+ HE ADDED.
HOWEVER, HE SAID, IN THE FIELD OF CIVIL LAW, RETROSPECTIVE LAW WAS PERMISSIBLE AND SOMETIMES DESIRABLE, SUCH AS VALIDATING MARRIAGES WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE VOID OWING TO SOME DEFECT IN THE CEREMONY.
*FOR THE LEGISLATOR IT IS A MATTER OF JUDGING WHAT IS REASONABLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
+ IF THE LEGISLATION IS INTENDED TO OPERATE RETROSPECTIVELY TO CONFER A BENEFIT ON PRIVATE PERSONS WITHOUT IMPOSING A CORRESPONDING OBLIGATION, THEN NO SUBSTANTIAL OBJECTION IS LIKELY TO ARISE, HE SAID.
/MR WONG