I
Detailed and
were in violation of the Bill of Rights Ordinance.
comprehensive submissions were made both by Mr. Dykes for the
Crown and Mr. Fung for the defence with many cases drawn to my
attention. I am most grateful for their assistance. I have
considered all the points raised and the cases cited. .I shall
refer to
of them together with cases which I have come
across myself in giving this ruling.
some
THE ISSUE
!
The issue in this case concerns whether the provisions
in S.46 (c) and (d) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance Cap.134
("DDO") are in violation of S.8 A.11 (1) of Hong Kong Bill of
Rights Ordinance ("BORO").
APPLICABILITY
Before embarking upon the analysis of the issue, it is
necessary to decide how, if at all, the BORO affects the offence
presently before this Court.
The general rule is that a piece of legislation is not
retrospective in effect unless it
it specifically so provides.
There is no such provision in the BORO. Therefore, it does not
affect substantive offences committed before its commencement
date. However, the present issue is not concerned with the
effects of the BORO upon the substantive offence under S.7 of
to be It concerns how that substantive offence is
proved. S.46 of the DDO is
the DDO.
in aid in proving its case.
section which the Crown can pray
It relieves the Crown from the
burden of adducing evidence to prove that the possession of the