XN000022-1992-01-13 — Page 4

3

نیا

MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 1992

OF

HE ADDED THAT THE COURT OF APPEAL RECOGNISED THAT NEW KINDS EVIDENCE NEED TO BE GIVEN BY THE CROWN TO SHOW WHY AN EVIL IN SOCIETY, SUCH AS DRUG TRAFFICKING, JUSTIFIED THE LIMITATION ON RIGHTS.

·

"THE TASK OF GOVERNMENT HAS BECOME MORE DEMANDING, BUT IN THE PROCESS, MORE RESPONSIBLE.

"THE COURT OF APPEAL HAS MADE AN EXCELLENT START TO BILL OF RIGHTS JURISPRUDENCE IN HONG KONG. I LOOK FORWARD ΤΟ THE DAY WHEN OTHER COUNTRIES WITH HUMAN RIGHTS GUARANTEES START RELYING ON OUR OWN CASE LAW," MR MATHEWS SAID.

SPEAKING ON THE APPROACH OF THE GOVERNMENT EXISTING LAWS BROUGHT UNDER THE BILL OF RIGHTS, MR GOVERNMENT, AS THE ORIGINATOR OF THE BILL OF RESPECTED THE RIGHTS THAT IT PROTECTED.

ΤΟ CHALLENGES ΤΟ MATHEWS SAID THE RIGHTS, NATURALLY

NEVERTHELESS, HE SAID THE GOVERNMENT ALSO HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND THE PRE-EXISTING LAW OF HONG KONG ACCORDING TO ITS TERMS WHEN THAT WAS APPROPRIATE.

"WITH ANY BILL OF RIGHTS CHALLENGE THE POINT IS TO JUDGE THE MERITS OF THE CHALLENGE.

GOVERNMENT'S

STARTING

COMMUNITY

"WHERE THE VIEW TAKEN IS THAT A LAW REFLECTS A CONCERN THAT AMOUNTS TO A PERMISSIBLE LIMITATION ON AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, THE DECISION TAKEN WILL BE VIGOROUSLY TO DEFEND THE CHALLENGED LAW.

"IF THE COMMUNITY INTEREST AND THE INDIVIDUAL INTEREST IS SEEN TO BE FINELY BALANCED, THE DECISION WILL BE TO DEFEND SO AS TO ALLOW AN IMPARTIAL COURT DECIDE THE ISSUE,' HE EXPLAINED.

AS TO WHETHER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD BECOME INVOLVED IN A CASE BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES WHERE BILL OF RIGHTS POINTS WERE RAISED, MR MATHEWS SAID IN DECIDING ON INTERVENTION ONE SHOULD BE MINDFUL OF NOT DELAYING OR EXTENDING PROCEEDINGS AND BY SO DOING ADDING TO THEIR COST.

"ONE PARTY CAN OFTEN BE EXPECTED TO ADVANCE AN INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATION THAT WOULD NOT BE DIFFERENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN INTERPRETATION.

"A COURT MAY APPOINT AN AMICUS CURIAE WHO MAY ALSO BE EXPECTED TO ADVANCE THIS INTERPRETATION, MR MATHEWS SAID.

"

HE SAID THE GOVERNMENT COULD PROPERLY ВЕ EXPECTED TO BE INVOLVED WHERE THERE WAS NO ONE TO ARGUE A PUBLIC INTEREST POINT OR THE COURT REQUESTED THE CROWN TO DO SO.

MR MATHEWS SAID A BILL OF RIGHTS LITIGATION CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CHAMBERS ACTED TO ENSURE THAT CASES WITH BILL OF RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS WERE DEALT WITH AS QUICKLY AND AS CONSISTENTLY AS POSSIBLE.

/WHERE LEGISLATION