14
WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1988
PRACTICAL EFFECT OF PROPOSALS ANALYSED
THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ΤΟ CENSORSHIP BILL 1988 WERE ANALYSED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, JEREMY MATHEWS, IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY (WEDNESDAY).
THE
FILM
THE HON
MR MATHEWS
SPEAKING DURING THE COMMITTEE STAGE DELIBERATIONS, SAID THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY THE HON MARTIN LEB WOULD REQUIRE ANY CHALLENGE TO BE BY WAY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
THEREFORE THE COURT WOULD, ÎN RELATION TO A DECISION OF THE CENSOR, CONSIDER WHETHER HE HAD LAWFULLY EXERCISED THE POWER GIVEN TO HIM.
"FOR EXAMPLE, WAS THE GROUND OF THE CENSOR'S DECISION ONE WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE 10(2) OF THE BILL?
"NEXT THE COURT WOULD CONSIDER WHETHER THE CENSOR HAD FOLLOWED THE CORRECT PROCEDURE. FOR EXAMPLE, DID THE AUTHORITY ASSIGN A CENSOR TO VIEW THE FILM? DID THE CENSOR VIEW THE FILM?
"UNLESS THE COURT WAS ABLE TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE ON THESE TWO GROUNDS, THE COURT WOULD THEN ASK ITSELF WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE CENSOR UNDER CLAUSE 10(2) WAS SUCH THAT NO REASONABLE CENSOR COULD HAVE REACHED THE DECISION HE DID,' MR MATHEWS SAID.
14
HE SAID THE COURT WOULD NOT CONCERN ITSELF WITH THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE DECISION WAS THE RIGHT DECISION BUT ONLY WHETHER THE DECISION WAS ONE OPEN TO THE CENSOR.
IN REACHING ITS DECISION, THE COURT WOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAD QUALIFIED THE DUTY OF THE CENSOR ΤΟ COMPLY WITH ARTICLE 19 AND GIVEN HIM A LATITUDE, CALLED BY MR LEE "A MARGIN OF APPRECIATION"
+
EFFECT
"THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF MR MARTIN LEE'S AMENDMENT WHICH I HAVE OUTLINED WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THE PRACTICAL OF THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY MR YEUNG PO-KWAN.
"FOLLOWING MR YEUNG'S AMENDMENT, ANY PERSON AGGRIEVED BY A DECISION OF THE CENSOR OR THE BOARD OF REVIEW COULD CHALLENGE DECISION BY WAY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
THAT
THE
"THE SAME THREE TESTS WOULD BE APPLIED BY THE COURT AND, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE COURT WOULD NEED то DECIDE WHETHER DECISION-MAKING PROCESS WAS DEFECTIVE,' MR MATHEWS SAID.
THERE WAS,