}
}
submitted that the quantity laid down in S.46 was targetted at the individuals who were probably users as well as traffickers was directed to the
at
a
low
This, he continued, level. important consideration, in the words of SALABIAKU, as to "what is at stake". Hence the 0.5 gramme in S.46 was justifiable
is always rebuttable. because it is aimed at the user and
WHYTE was directly on point because "the said the case of
He
provision
was
designed
to serve
an
objective
which
is
(
sufficiently important to permit overiding the...protected right
19
•
to the presumption of innocence (since it is in) response to a Lastly, he submitted that ONG's case major social problem. was not irrelevant because it was concerned with the presumption of innocence as against a presumption in relation to dangerous
was triggered off by drugs which
a specified amount.
under S.46 was not
conclusion,
he
said,
the
presumption
In
therefore incompatible with the BORO because it was rational as the figure of 0.5 gramme was realistic and corresponded to the patterns of consumption by the addicts in Hong Kong.
or
The offence of possession of dangerous drugs is very prevalent in Hong Kong. Presently, the deciding factor as to whether an accused is to be charged with possession simpliciter
to as "simple possession") (under S.8 commonly referred possession for the purpose of unlawful trafficking (under 5.7) is the quantity and/or the number of packets of dangerous drugs involved. If the quantity or packets of the dangerous drug is an accused will be more than that which is set out in S.46,
charged with possession for trafficking.
The Crown has adduced two statements by consent as evidence of the daily consumption of salts of esters of morphine
29