TNAG-2327-FCO40-3371-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-implementation-and-conferences-1991 — Page 50

!

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་