TNAG-2327-FCO40-3371-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-implementation-and-conferences-1991 — Page 57

In practice, however, both the Crown and the courts deal with such charges of possession for trafficking with a lot of common sense. If the quantity involved and the circumstances of the

such that the Crown feels able to accept the possession are admission for own consumption, it will inform the court and ask

for

conviction for simple possession.

Convenient

and

this

Crown's

is

However, the

decision is normally left to the officer-in-charge of the case because he is the one who knows the most about the background.

it time

might be, saving though

unsatisfactory because the court's function is being usurped in that whether an accused, who theoretically could be convicted of possession for trafficking, is to be so convicted or convicted of the lesser offence of simple possession is not left to the

decision of the court. Where the Crown refuses to accept the admission for own consumption (which is really a plea to simple possession), the courts hitherto had no choice but to rule that there was a case to answer on possession for trafficking: which

the accused it up to

possess for trafficking.

then leaves

prove

court

to

that he did not

Many factors are relevant when the

has succeeded in his accused an considers whether

rebuttal; none

important than the single factor of the

quantity of drugs involved because the smaller the quantity, the

easier for the accused to rebut and vice versa.

an accused's

S.46 gives rise to other ancillary and consequential

during Often,

the court that he has had

concern. cause

one or

matters which

rebuttal, he makes known to more convictions for simple possession. This is for the purpose of shewing that he is a dangerous drugs addict and therefore his contention of being in possession for his own consumption is

31