TNAG-2327-FCO40-3371-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-implementation-and-conferences-1991 — Page 58

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