more likely to be true. Although there is nothing in law which prohibits an accused from disclosing his previous convictions to
a
court
if
he
wishes,
nonetheless
it
is
not the
most
However, he
satisfactory method of bringing about an acquittal.
the
for
may be forced into adopting this course because he is required
to innocence
of charge
possession prove trafficking. But for S. 46, he would not need so to do.
to
his
-
need
In
Hence, it must be asked whether the minimum of 0.5
gramme of SEM in S.46 is necessary in its present form.
other words,
it be set by
statute or can the average
consumption not be a matter of viva voce evidence in each case? There is really no difficulty for the Crown to adduce evidence of average daily consumption of SEM by an addict as it has done in the present case. Indeed, by calling such evidence, the courts will have evidence of more up-to-date information about
dangerous drugs consumption.
way of putting before the Crown's contention that because of the quantity of dangerous
the dangerous drug the accused had
possession for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
drug involved,
shall
That is a much more satisfactory
court evidence in support of the
in his
are the
of
this
The majority of the provisions of the BORO provisions of the ICCPR as applied to Hong Kong and thus have an international origin. By S.2(3), the interpretation of the BORO
"to the fact that the have regard
purpose
Ordinance is to provide for the incorporation into the law of Hong Kong the provisions of the ICCPR as applied to Hong Kong,
and for ancillary legislation has made clear its intention to give effect to the
and connected
applicable provisions of the ICCPR.
matters"
Hence,
the
Consequently, where
where the
32