CO129-504-15 Various ordinances 4-4-1927 - 29-11-1927 — Page 22

22

Repeal of Ordinance No. 9 of 1911, s. 86, and substitution

of new

section.

5. Section 86 of the Liquors Consolidation Ordi- nance, 1911, is repealed and the following section is substituted therefor :-

Onus of proof, etc.

86.—(1) If any person is charged with the possession or control of dutiable liquors contrary to the provisions of this Ordinance it shall upon proof of possession be pre- sumed that the duty had not been paid, and the accused shall accordingly be liable to be convicted of such possession or control unless he proves beyond a reasonable doubt either that the duty had been paid or that he had good and sufficient reason to believe that it had been paid.

(2) If in any such case the accused pro- duces evidence in order to prove either that the duty had been paid or that he had good and sufficient reason to believe that it had been paid it shall be lawful for the com- plainant to produce in reply any evidence tending to prove that the duty had not been paid or that the accused had not good and sufficient reason to believe that it had been paid, as the case may be.

(3) Without prejudice to the presumption against the accused under sub-section (1), it shall be the duty of the complainant to pro- duce to the court or magistrate as part of the case for the prosecution any evidence which he may have tending to prove either that the duty had not been paid or that the accused had not good and sufficient reason for believing that it had been paid.

(4) The right conferred by sub-section (2) on the complainant to produce evidence in reply shall not be deemed to be affected by any non-compliance with the provisions of sub-section (3), and it shall be lawful for the complainant to produce such evidence in reply notwithstanding such non-compliance: Provided that in the event of such non-com- pliance the court or magistrate may give leave to the accused to produce any further evidence in answer to the evidence produced by the complainant under sub-section (2), if the court or magistrate shall be of the opinion that the accused would otherwise be prejudiced by such non-compliance and that in the interests of justice such leave should be granted.

(5) If any dutiable liquors are found upon any licensed premises and the licensee of the said premises is charged with the possession of the said dutiable liquors it shall until the contrary is proved be pre- sumed that the said dutiable liquors were in the possession of such licensee.

(6) No person shall be convicted of the offence of having in his possession or under his control intoxicating liquors which were imported, manufactured or prepared con- trary to the provisions of this Ordinance if he proves that he had good and sufficient reason to believe that the intoxicating liquors in question were lawfully imported, manu- factured or prepared, as the case may be.

Passed the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, this 27th day of October, 1927.

E. W. HAMILTON,

Deputy Clerk of Councils,