Judgment No. CCZ 9/2016 25 Const. Application No. CCZ 316/2012 established in a law that is precise and clear, both in a material and in a formal sense. The applicants remained protected by a norm that meets all the requirements of legality in accordance with the fundamental right guaranteed to them by the Constitution. It is worth noting that consistent with the right to the protection of the law, the procedural and substantive remedies for alleged contravention of s 38B(1) of the Act are based on the principle of respect for due process of the law. A person who fails to produce a television or radio licence at a designated office within seven days of written notice to do so must be brought before a court where he or she is afforded an opportunity to defend his or her conduct. That person has a right which the applicants exercised, to raise as a defence to a charge, the question of the constitutionality of the provisions of the Act he or she is alleged to have contravened. The applicants failed to establish on a balance of probabilities violation of the fundamental right to the protection of the law as they alleged. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Each applicant sought to impugn the constitutional validity of s 38B(1) of the Act on the ground that it violated the fundamental right to freedom of expression enshrined in s 20(1) of the Constitution by prohibiting, under threat of criminal sanctions, possession of equipment capable of receiving a broadcasting service without a licence. Section 20(1) of the Constitution recognizes and guarantees to every person a right to freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information. The right