28
1. A disqualification under section 8 of cap. 375 is not "punishment" within the meaning of article 11 (6). Rather it was a civil consequence of accumulating 15 points for driving offences. Article 11 (6) was directed only at criminal sanctions, not at all punitive consequences of a conviction.
2. The payment of a FPT absolves a person from liability to prosecution for an offence (section 3 (8) of cap. 240) and therefore article 11 (6) had no application.
3. Nothing in article 11 (6) prohibits multiple consequences flowing from a single act.
4. There is no "final" disposition of a traffic offence until expiry of the relevant two year period.
Counsel: S.R. Bailey, for the Crown; Paul Li, of K.M. Lai & Co, solicitors, for the defence.
Note: For a discussion by the European Court of Human Rights of whether regulatory traffic offences punishable by fines are "criminal" within the meaning of article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, see Öztürk v Federal Republic of Germany, Judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A, No. 73, 6 EHRR 409, 73 ILR 511.
RIGHT TO PRIVACY (ARTICLE 14)
R v Eddie Soh Chee-kong, High Court, Saied J
In this case, Warwick Reid, a potential witness for the Crown in the custody of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, sought to prevent the prosecution from disclosing to the defence copies of personal letters written by him to his wife. According to the South China Morning Post (2 December 1991, p. 1), Reid argued that the decision to intercept, photocopy and retain his letters in their entirety was a violation of his right to privacy under article 14 of the Bill of Rights and that disclosure of the correspondence would compound that violation. He asked the judge to order that the copies be delivered to him or destroyed. Article 14 of the Bill of Rights provides:
14. (1) No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of hte law against such interference or attacks.
A ruling by Saied J is scheduled for 6 December 1991.
[Note: The censorship of prisoners' correspondence has given rise to a number of (successful) cases against the United Kingdom under article 8 of the the European Convention (right to respect for private life and correspondence). See, for example, Silver v United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 25 March 1989, Series A, No. 61, 72 ILR 334, 5 EHRR 347.]
Bill of Rights Bulletin
December 1991
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.