Lawyers see holes in bill

Press, 8 February 1986, Page 8

Lawyers see holes in bill

The proposed Bill of Rights ahould not become law because it would provide no protection against the abuses of a determined Government, said a Christchurch lawyer, Mr John Bum, yesterday. Mr Bum said he agreed with all the rights protected in the bill, but the wording defining these rights was too vague and required a large degree of judicial interpretation.

He cited the article protecting freedom of movement and residence, and asked how this could be reconciled with restrictions imposed on paroled prisoners. Unless the wording was more precise, the freedoms and rights contained in the bill could be evaded by judicial interpretation, he said. , Mr Bum told a seminar on the bill yesterday that if it became law in its

present form the bill could give the false impression that rights were safeguarded. Another Christchurch lawyer, Mr John Fogarty, suggested that the bill should contain an article protecting private property. This should .say that private property could not be taken by the Government except for a public purpose and with just compensation, he said.

Such an article would < also rescue the bill from its present public apathy, ( . as the protection of private property was a right most people felt was rele-: vant to their lives. // / ?}pi Mr Palmer said it would be difficult to de- i? fine private property for.;; such a purpose, or to' ■»' reconcile the protection of property with the obligation to pay taxes or the i forfeit of property for- - criminal offences. -' ’