TNAG-2326-FCO40-3370-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-policy-1991 — Page 3

Ref

Tel. No.

Date

се

یلا

Secretary for Constitutional

in

Affairs

B3/11/10

MEMO

To

Minul k

Political Adviser (Attn : Mr S. Bradley)

810 2048

Your Ref.

in

9 October 1991

dated

ce. The Coff, HKD Fro

POLITICAL ADVISERS

9/0303 9110791

*. CQYERN

Ms Barrett

Stevie Bradly

Teite 12

по пісалал

To consider please tunk Legal Adures

Court decisions arising from

the Bill of Rights

D

Do the Chinese have legitimate grounds for concen

Further to my memo of 28 September 1991 in this series to you, I have updated my note summarising recent BOR-related court cases. A copy is enclosed. You are of course aware that the Court of Appeal's judge- ment concerning presumption provisions in the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance has far-reaching implications on presumption provisions in other ordinances. In essence,

the Court held the view that presumptions were themselves contrary to the BOR but that they should be subject to a stringent test of rationality and reason- ableness. (see para 13 of my note).

2.

I have not attached the 69-page judgement to to this memo but in case you or UKREP JLG are interested in the detail, I can make a copy for you.

OFFICE

ENT SEE RETARIAT

आप

(John CY Leung)

for Secretary for Constitutional Affairs

M

187x

c.c. UKREP JLG (Attn: Mr C. Garrett)

3.F. 3C

CONFIDENTIAL #3