26
the extent that the defendant shows that any of the assumptions are incorrect in his case". The assumptions include the assumption:
4. (3)(a) that any property appearing to the court--
(ii) to have been transferred to him at any time since the beginning of the period of 6 years ending when the proceedings were instituted against him,
was received by him, at the earliest time at which he appears to the court to have held it, as payment or reward in connection with drug trafficking carried on by him or another.
Counsel: Tim Casewell, for the Crown; Kevin Egan for the defence.
Public Order Ordinance (cap. 245), section 33 (1); offensive weapon
R v Chan Cho-ming, Magistrate Lim
This case involves a challenge to section 33 (1) of the Public Order Ordinance (cap. 245) on the ground that it violates article 11 (1) of the Bill of Rights. Section 33 (1) provides:
33. (1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, has with him in any public place any offensive weapon shall be guilty of an offence..
"
There are a number of other cases in which the same issue has been raised.
RIGHT TO TRIAL WITHOUT UNDUE DELAY (ARTICLE 11 (2)(C))
Extradition proceedings in UK
In the Matter of Lorrain Esme Osman and In the matter of an Application for A Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum, Queen's Bench Division, High Court of Justice (Divisional Court), London, Woolf LJ and Pill J, 14 November 1991
See the discussion of this case at p. 16 above.
PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION (ARTICLE 11 (2)(G))
Theft Ordinance (cap. 210), section 33
Duty Free Shoppers HK Ltd v. Wong Kwok Pong et al, Civ App 169 of 1991, HCA No. A6091 of 1991
In this case (described in detail at p. 9 above), it was argued that section 33 of the Theft Ordinance violated article 11 (2)(g) of the Bill of Rights. Article 11 (2)(g) provides:
Bill of Rights Bulletin
December 1991
Page 45Page 46
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.