¹⁵s 4.      ¹⁶In Mo onen  v Film & Literature Boa rd of Review (2000) N ZLR 9, 17, the Court of App eal said that the purpo se  of  section  5  of  the  B ill  of  Rights  Act  “ necessarily  involves  the  Court  having  the  power  and,  on occasions the duty, to indicate that although a statutory provision must be enforced according to its proper meaning, it is inconsistent with the B ill of Rights, in that it constitutes an unreasonable limitation on the relevant right or freedom which cannot be dem onstrably justified in a free and democratic society.  In R v Pouma ko [2000]  2 NZLR  695 , 715 -720 , Thoma s J said  he was prep ared  to make such a declaratio n.      ¹⁷s 6.      ¹⁸s 5.      ¹⁹s 3. 11 minimum standards of criminal procedure. Other rights protected relate to the right to vote, protection from retroactive penalties and double jeopardy, and the right to the observance of natural justice, to judicial review, and to bring proceedings against and  to  defend  proceedings  brought  by  the  Crown  in  the  same  way  as  civil proceedings between individuals. 17 Under the Act, the courts have no invalidating power.¹⁵ Nor is there express power in  the  Act  to  issue  declarations  of  incompatibility.¹⁶  If  an  enactment  can  be interpreted  consistently  with  the  rights  and  freedoms  in  the  Bill  of  Rights,  that meaning  must  be  preferred  to  any  other  meaning.¹⁷  The  rights  and  freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, that is, the concept of justified limitation.¹⁸  The Bill of Rights Act applies only to acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and to acts done by any person or body in performing a public function, power, or duty under the law.¹⁹