in question (e.g. the presumption of supply) generally violates the presumption of innocence in section 25(c). Section 4 Section 4 specifies that the Bill of Rights Act is not supreme law. It provides that courts hearing cases under the act cannot repeal or revoke, make invalid or ineffective, or decline to apply any provision of any statute made by Parliament because it is inconsistent with any provision in the Bill of Rights Act. This is the case whether the statute was passed before or after the Bill of Rights Act. Another statute will prevail if it is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act and cannot be said to be a justified limitation under section 5 or interpreted consistently with the Bill of Rights Act under section 6. Section 5 Section 5 provides that if legislation is found to be prima facie inconsistent with a particular right or freedom, it may be consistent with the Bill of Rights Act if the inconsistency is a justified limitation. The application of section 5 is two-fold; the courts must look at whether the provision serves an important and significant objective, and if there is a rational and proportionate connection between that objective and the provision. Case law in overseas jurisdictions suggests that restricting the supply of illicit drugs is a pressing social objective which might, in certain circumstances, justify limitations on the presumption of innocence. This was accepted in New Zealand by the Supreme Court in the leading case of R v Hansen; however, a majority of the court found that the reverse onus of the presumption of supply contained in section 6(6) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 was unconnected to the objective or a disproportionate response to the problem. Section 6 Section 6 states that where an act can be given a meaning consistent with the rights and freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights, that meaning shall be preferred to any other; this was the basis of the appeal in R v Hansen. R v Hansen (2007) The leading New Zealand case on the presumption of supply is R v Hansen, where the appellant was charged with possession of cannabis for the purpose of supply. Hansen argued that being required to persuade a jury that he did not possess cannabis for the purpose of sale or supply was inconsistent with his right under section 25(c) of the Bill of