5
Shao Tienren: In the example, the list of the English
Lu Ping:
Wang Shuwen:
'Act includes drug trafficking as an extraditable offence whereas Hong Kong is still adopting
the 1935 law where the crimes list did not include drug trafficking. The Court declares that there are inconsistencies
and the law is void. Does that decision apply retrospectively?
That is not the point. This is an example which illustrates that when repugnancy
is declared, it may be a part but not the whole of the legislation that is repugnant.
The situation may be different in different countries. Taking Japan as an example, when the district courts rule that there are inconsistencies, the decision cannot take effect unless it has gone through
the Supreme Court. There was a case concerning the stationing of army. The Hokaido court made its judgment but the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Do all levels of courts in Hong Kong have the same power to rule on repugnancy? I have also a second question. When the Japanese court declares that
a law contradicts the constitution, that law is not repealed immediately. The Diet will pass the resolution that the law is void. When the Hong Kong court rules that there are inconsistencies, will the law be invalid for the particular case or will the law become invalid for
all future cases?
/....6
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.