TNAG-2327-FCO40-3371-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-implementation-and-conferences-1991 — Page 60

'reasonable

and

irresistable

inference

.of

possession

for

trafficking may be inferred without any necessity of resorting

to S.46.

Granted that in some cases, it may be difficult for

such an inference to be the only reasonable and irresistable one

is the raison d'être

to

be

that

circumstances

are

such

reasonable and

but then, drawn;

existence of the presumption of innocence. If the surrounding

not admit of only that they do

irresistable inference of possession for

for

the

one

the

purpose of unlawful trafficking, then the accused must be given,

the benefit of the doubt.

Accordingly, I find that A.11 (1) is not restricted in

its interpretation in anywise as regards 3.46 (c) and (d); nor

is any limitation justifiable nor necessary.. By virtue of S.3

of the BORO, I rule that in this case, S.46 (c) and (d) are to

be considered repealed because they cannot be constructed in a

consistent manner with the BORO.

34

Ching Y. Wong

Deputy District Judge

Page 60Page 61