TNAG-2553-FCO40-3728-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-review-of-legislation-1992 — Page 44

FCO40 Hong Kong Department Records 聯邦事務部香港部檔案 All

215

Gambling Ordinance (cap. 148), section 19 (1)(c); Criminal Procedure Ordinance (cap. 221), section 94A; negative averments, gambling offences

R v Man Kit-man, Mag App No. 991 of 1991, High Court, Bewley J

This case involves a challenge to section 19 (1)(c) of the Gambling Ordinance (cap. 148), s. 19 (1)(c) and section 94A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (cap. 221) on the grounds that these provision violate article 11 (1) of the Bill of Rights. The matter is listed for hearing on 6 December 1991, but is likely to be adjourned.

Counsel: S.R. Bailey, for the Crown; Joseph Tse, for the defence.

Gambling Ordinance (cap. 148), sections 19 (1)(a), (c) and 19 (2)

R v To Tai-yau, ST No. 545 of 1991, Mr L.D. D'Almada Remedios, Magistrate

This case involves a challenge to a number of presumptions in the Gambling Ordinance (cap. 148) on the ground that they violate article 11 (1) of the Bill of Rights. The defendants are also engaged in concurrent civil proceedings in which they have brought actions for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment.

Counsel: S.R. Bailey, for the Crown; Keith Oderberg, for the defence.

Gambling Ordinance (cap. 148), section 26

R v Ng Chi-keung, Mr Davies, Esq

This case involves a challenge to section 26 of the Gambling Ordinance (cap. 148) on the ground that it violates the presumption of innocence. Section 26 provides:

26. If in any proceedings under this Ordinance or otherwise on application by or on behalf of the Commissioner of Police, a court is satisfied that any money, gambling equipment or other property, not being immovable properry, has been used in or for or in connexion with unlawful gambling or an unlawful lottery, the court shall order that it be forfeited to the Crown, whether or not any person has been convicted of an offence under this Ordinance.

Counsel: Patrick Lee, for the Crown.

Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance (cap. 405), section 4 (3)

R v Wong Ma-tai, District Court Case No. 129 of 1990, Deputy Judge Ching Y. Wong

This case involves a challenge to the "assumptions" contained in section 4 (3) of the Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance (cap. 405). Section 4 deals with the assessment of a person's proceeds of drug trafficking. Section 4 (2) provides that, in making the assessment, the relevant court "may make the following assumptions, except to

Bill of Rights Bulletin

December 1991

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.