TNAG-2553-FCO40-3728-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-review-of-legislation-1992 — Page 63

RESTRICTED

BILL OF RIGHTS

SIGNIFICANT COURT DECISIONS

JANUARY 1992

Annex A

Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134

In SIN Yau-ming (HC 289/90) the Court of Appeal ruled on 30 September 1991 that the following presumptions had been repealed by the Bill of Rights on its commencement

date (8 June 1991):- Sections 46(c) and (d), 47(1)(c) and

(d) and (3).

Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, Cap. 238

In R v TAU Ting-man (DC 222/91) Deputy Judge

Eccleton ruled on 15 November 1991 that:-

2.

(i)

(ii)

the presumptions in Section 24 of Cap. 238 were

repealed by the Bill of Rights. (Given that the

presumptions are in very similar terms to those

considered by the Court of Appeal in SIN'S CASE, Deputy Judge Eccleton's ruling was not appealed, and accordingly Section 24 of Cap. 238 is now

regarded as repealed.)

Section 94A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance,

Cap. 221 (negative averments) applied to Section

13(1) of Cap. 238 with the result that the Crown

does not have to prove a person in possession of

a firearm or ammunition etc. is not the holder

of a valid licence. It is a defence for the

accused to prove that he had a valid licence at

the relevant date. The effect of Section 94A

RESTRICTED