TNAG-2326-FCO40-3370-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-policy-1991 — Page 4

RESTRICTED

RESTRICTED

Effect of the Bill of Rights on existing law

This

note

summarises

several

recent

cases

involving

the repeal of existing legislation which was held

inconsistent with the Bill

and cases of Rights

involving significant BOR points.

to be

2.

few

onus reverse

involving

the Bill of

So far, court judgements

(BOR) Rights

have resulted in the repeal of section

52E (1) (a) of

the District Court Ordinance (Cap 336) and a

provisions in section 46 and 47 of the

Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Cap 134). There are several other cases concerning the issue of stop orders under the Inland Revenue Ordinance, the right to legal aid and abuse process caused by inordinate delay which relate to BOR

.of

points.

Making of prohibition orders under the District Court

Ordinance

3.

Section 525 (1) (a) of the District Court Ordinance

provides that the Court shall have jurisdiction to make an

order prohibiting a person from leaving Hong Kong (a prohibition order) to facilitate the enforcement, securing pursuance of a judgement against that person for the payment of a specified sum of money.

Or

4.

In Tam V Wu (D.C. Civil Jurisdiction Action No. 6250 of 1989), Judge Downey held that the above sub-section

be repealed by virtue of section 3 of the BOR on the

grounds that its limitation on the right to leave Hong Kong protected under Article 8 (2) of the BOR went beyond what

Article 8 (3) of the

was

under permitted

BOR.

While

recognising the jurisdiction to make prohibition orders was