!
1
we are concerned with mere 'possession'; that 'transporting' was something further than 'possession' and was distinguishable
therefrom was made clear by Lord Diplock in his judgment.
the
appeal
More
was
based on
the
notion
of
the
importantly, fundamental rule of 'natural justice' under the English common law rather than on a right to be presumed innocent which was not
ONG's case was a right under-the Singapore's Constitution. considered in STANGER (1983) 2 DLR (4th) 121, at 141-2, which rejected its applicability when considering the presumption of innocence in the Canadian Charter; and OAKES approved of that
a decision of rejection. I find that although ONG's case was the Privy Council, and is therefore of great authority, it is not of any great assistance in deciding the issue presently
before this court. The case of SALABIAKU was a case which seems
on policy ground
to have
been
decided
particular principle.
the court
in
on than more
any
With respect, I agree with Mr. Fung that
dealing
SALABIAKU
Further,
was
all
was it held
with a
'permissive'
presumption whereas the presumption in the present case is a 'mandatory' presumption. Hence, very different considerations
must be applied; and therefore SALABIAKU,
and therefore SALABIAKU, in that respect is
the analysis of the present again not of great assistance to the
issue.
that the presumption in
question was not applied by the French courts in a way which conflicted with the presumption of innocence; that they remained within reasonable limits because they took into account importance of what was at stake and maintained the rights of the JOBE is a defence. Hence, I place not much reliance on it. case which is of some assistance, because although it was which dealt with a very singular provision in
the
the
a case
Gambian
24
དག་