TNAG-2553-FCO40-3728-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-review-of-legislation-1992 — Page 66

RESTRICTED

4

-

Import and Export Ordinance, Cap. 60

8.

In R v MAN-ho (SK 5472/91) Magistrate Mr R Day

ruled (9 October 1991) that:-

9.

(i)

(ii)

the evidential presumptions in Sections 18A and

35A of Cap. 60 were not inconsistent with the Bill of Rights (since unlike the presumptions in the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance the legal burden did not shift to the defendant and rebuttal

required no more than the raising of a

reasonable doubt);

the presumption in Section 34 of Cap. 60 (which does shift the legal burden) while prima facie in breach of the Bill's presumption of innocence, was nevertheless a reasonable and justified limitation on a Bill of Rights

guarantee and accordingly of continuing validity.

Magistrate Mr De Souza ruled (7 November 1991) in R v TSUI Shek-law (SK 5817/91) that Section 35A (2) of

Cap. 60 (a presumption imposing an evidential burden on an accused) was not inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. The defendants were subsequently convicted and have appealed. The grounds of appeal filed include the Bill of Rights issue. The appeal is expected to come on in the late February/early March.

Gambling Ordinance, Cap. 148

10.

In R v NG Chi-keung (SK 9767) Magistrate Davies ruled (on 19 November 1991) that the presumption in s.19(4) of the Gambling Ordinance (relating to forfeiture of money presured to be used for unlawful gambling) is not affected by Article 11(1) of the Bill of Rights (since it arises

RESTRICTED