TNAG-2553-FCO40-3728-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-review-of-legislation-1992 — Page 65

RESTRICTED

3

Section 30 (Unlawful Possession)

5.

In R v LEE Kwong-kut (W 990/91), Magistrate J E

Acton-Bond ruled (28 October 1991) that Section 30 had been

repealed by the Bill of Rights (inconsistent with

presumption of innocence Article 11(1)). This ruling is

to be the subject of an appeal.

Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210

6.

In R v LAU Shiu-wah (DC 790/90) District Judge

Whaley ruled (1 November 1991) that Section 29 (6) (a) (i)

(presumption concerning obtaining property by means of a

dishonoured cheque) was repealed by the Bill of Rights

(inconsistent with presumption of innocence Article

11(1)). It is not proposed to appeal this ruling and the provision is now regarded as repealed.

Control of Obsence and Indecent Articles Ordinance, Cap.

390

7.

In R v CHENG Pui-kit (SK 5333/91), Magistrate I

Carlson ruled (18 October 1991) that Section 21 (1) of Cap.

390 (strict liability offence of publishing an obscene

article) was consistent with the Bill of Rights (on the

basis that while prima facie inconsistent with the

presumption of innocence, it was nevertheless a reasonable

and justified limitation on a Bill of Rights guarantee).

In the Magistrates Appeal R v MAK Siu-shing (MA 724/91),

appeal counsel will mount a Bill of Rights challenge to the

Obscene Articles Tribunal's power to determine conclusively

the issue of obscenity outside a criminal trial. The

appeal was adjourned on 8 January 1992 for various

enquiries concerning the proceedings in the Magistrates

Court and is yet to be re-listed.

RESTRICTED