- 42 A - is no such time limits for contempt proceedings. The Judge queried if the injunction had the effect of overriding the B statutory limits, which is a matter for the legislature.39 C contempt proceedings and criminal proceedings seek to achieve which determine the time limits. E C D Contempt proceedings have no time limit because the due administration of justice is at stake, which goes to the root of the rule of law. F B With respect, such a view conflates the very different purposes D A E F The time limits prescribed by the NAO are plainly dictated by G its own underlying legislative policy considerations. There is no question of the injunction seeking to override the H G H statutory limits. I J I 73. For the above reasons, the Judge’s finding of conflict or J inconsistency that would render it inappropriate to grant the injunction K L D2.4 Potentially engaging the right to freedom of expression M 74. N O P Q K cannot be supported. Relating to the judicial function of the court discussed at Part D2.2 above is the fourth aspect of the injunction, namely, it may potentially engage the fundamental right to freedom of expression. word “potentially” advisedly. It is because strictly speaking, the right to free expression is not or cannot possibly be engaged by the 4 Acts that the injunction seeks to enjoin. For the right is not a licence to commit any criminal offence, let alone the 4 Acts. R S intended by the injunction, may arise.40 N O P Q R S T 39 V M However, as the Judge rightly observed, potential “chilling effects” as described above, though not T U We used the L 40 Decision, [69]. See [17] above. U V