XN000022-1992-01-13 — Page 3

2

MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 1992

PERMITTED

IT

ARE "MOST OF THE FREEDOMS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS

CIRCUMSTANCES. A BE LIMITED IN CERTAIN

PARTICULAR FREEDOM MAY RESTRAINED TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF A CONFLICTING PUBLIC INTEREST. QUESTION OF BALANCE, MR MATHEWS SAID.

"

ENABLED ON A SUGGESTION THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS GO FREE, HE SAID THE GOVERNMENT HAD NOT GONE SOFT ON CRIMINALS.

TO

BE

IS

A

CRIMINALS

TO

THAT "THE BILL OF RIGHTS CONTAINS STRICT SAFEGUARDS THE INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES.

APPLY

ΤΟ

"THE COMMUNITY HAS AN INTEREST IN BRINGING

OFFENDERS

TO

AN

JUSTICE BUT IT ALSO HAS INNOCENT, MR MATHEWS SAID.

FF

EQUAL INTEREST IN NOT CONVICTING THE

IT HAD BEEN SAID THAT THE COURTS WOULD BE INUNDATED WITH BILL

WOULD OF RIGHTS POINTS AND THAT HONG KONG'S SYSTEM OF JUSTICE

BECOME CLOGGED AND UNABLE TO FUNCTION.

**

"THIS HAS NOT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID: VIEW WILL NOT DO SO.

OCCURRED AND IN MY

WHILE THERE WERE MANY BILL OF RIGHTS POINTS BEING TAKEN IN OUT THAT ONLY MAGISTRATES COURTS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL POINTED DECISIONS HAD REACHED THE COURT OF APPEAL.

IN ONE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISIONS, A NUMBER PRESUMPTIONS IN THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ORDINANCE WERE FOUND REPEALED BEING NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN THE BILL RIGHTS ORDINANCE.

THE

TWO

OF

FOR

OF

MR MATHEWS SAID CONSIDERATION WAS UNDER WAY AS TO WHETHER

LEGISLATION

BE OTHER SIMILAR PRESUMPTIONS IN OTHER PIECES OF AMENDED OR REPEALED.

SHOULD

"BE THAT AS IT MAY, I MUST APPLAUD THE COURT OF APPEAL

IN ITS OF DETERMINATION TO PROVIDE A FIRM THEORETICAL BASE FOR DECIDING BILL RIGHTS ISSUES, MR MATHEWS REMARKED.

"

"THE COURT OF APPEAL HAS RECOGNISED IN THAT CASE THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS MUST RECEIVE A GENEROUS AND PURPOSIVE INTERPRETATION.

AS "THE LANGUAGE OF THE COVENANT

MIRRORED IN THE BILL OF FLEXIBLE AND RIGHTS ORDINANCE IS BROAD NECESSARILY SO, TO ENSURE A TIMELESS CHARACTER.

-

"IT NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO COPE WITH AN EVER CHANGING AND VIBRANT TIMES то HONG KONG SOCIETY, AS WELL AS A SOCIETY THAT DESIRES AT ALL LIVE IN PEACE AND SECURITY, MR MATHEWS SAID.

THE COURT OF APPEAL ALSO DECIDED IN THAT CASE THAT THE BURDEN OF JUSTIFYING A LIMITATION OF FREEDOM LIES ON THE GOVERNMENT.

"IT IS A BURDEN WE READILY SHOULDER. ANY GOVERNMENT WHICH IS LEGISLATES TO PROTECT SOCIETY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE WHY IT FELT NECESSARY TO LIMIT INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS TO ACHIEVE ITS MATHEWS SAID.

ENDS."

MR

/HE ADDED