TNAG-2327-FCO40-3371-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-implementation-and-conferences-1991 — Page 41

1

any act done by the accused, which raises

it was done for the . the presumption that purpose of trafficking, is per se unlawful, for it involves unauthorised possession of a controlled drug, which is an offence...No wholly innocent explanation of the purpose for which the drug was being transported is possible. Their Lordships would

any

of

see no rule fundamental SO no constitutional

possession

with conflict natural justice and objection ta a statutory presumption it was rebuttable by the (provided that that accused)

his

of the controlled drugs in any measurable quantity, without regard to specific minima, was for the purpose of trafficking

of trafficking in them...the Drugs

raises the rebuttable presumption when the quantity of drugs in the possession of the accused exceeds the appropriate minimum specified in S.15.

Act only

these

as

a matter

of

It minimum

common

is not

that disputed quantities are many times greater than the daily dose taken by typical heroin addicts in Singapore; so, sense, the likelihood is that if it is being transported in such quantities this is for All that is the purpose of trafficking. suggested to the contrary is that there may

addicts

daily the normal; but consumption much exceeds these abnormal addicts, if such there be, are protected by the fact that the inference that

be

exceptional

possession

was

whose

for the is rebuttable.

purpose

In

of their

trafficking Lordships' view there is no substance in the suggestion that S.15 of the Drugs Act is inconsistent with the Constitution, at any

it relates to

the with which alone cases are concerned."

rate

So

far

possession,

as

proved instant

The Canadian Charter

In the

By far the most recent cases where the presumption of

innocence was considered come from the Canadian courts. case of R v. OAKES (1986) 24 CCC 321, the accused was charged with possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking contrary to S.4 (2) of the Canadian Narcotic Control Act, R.S.c. S.8 of the Act provides that where the accused is found

establish that

not have the in possession he

1970.

must

he did

15

**E!་་་་་་