111836-1927-Supplementary-Liquors-Amendment — Page 2

433

contrary to the provisions of this Ordinance it shall upon proof of possession be pre- sumed that the duty had not been paid, and the accused shall accordingly be liable to be convicted of such possession or control unless he proves either that the duty had been paid or that he had good and sufficient reason to believe that it had been paid.

(2) If in any such case the accused pro- duces evidence in order to prove either that the duty had been paid or that he had good and sufficient reason to believe that it had been paid it shall be lawful for the com- plainant to produce in rebuttal any evidence tending to prove that the duty had not been paid or that the accused had not good and sufficient reason to believe that it had been paid, as the case may be.

(3) If any dutiable liquors are found upon any licensed premises and the licensee of the said premises is charged with the possession of the said dutiable liquors it shall until the contrary is proved be pre- sumed that the said dutiable liquors were in the possession of such licensee.

(4) No person shall be convicted of the offence of having in his possession or under his control intoxicating liquors which were imported, manufactured or prepared con- trary to the provisions of this Ordinance if he proves that he had good and sufficient reason to believe that the intoxicating liquors in question were lawfully imported, manu- factured or prepared, as the case may be.

(5) In this section proof meaus proof beyond a reasonable donĥt.

Objects and Reasons.

1. The Ordinance is introduced because of the obscurity of a section in the principal Ordinance which is of great practical importance, i.e., section 86. Attention has been drawn to this subject by a recent case before a magistrate. The section is open to the following doubts and criticisms. which are put very shortly :-

(a) It seems to hesitate between being a substantive

section and an evidence section.

(4) It is arguable that possession must first be proved by the prosecution to be contrary to the pro- visions of (the) -Ordinance" before the onus is thrown on the accused of proving that the duty has been paid. This reduces the section to an absurdity in the case where the only element of illegality is the non-payment of duty.

(e) The section provides that every person who, con- trary to the provisions of the Ordinance, has in his possession any intoxicating liquors which have been illegally made shall be guilty of an offence, but it is not contrary to the provisions of the Ordinance to be in possession of intoxicat - ing liquors which have been illegally made.

(d) On the other hand, it is unnecessary for the section to declare it to be an offence to be in possession of any intoxicating liquors contrary to the provisions of the Ordinance. Even if the mere prohibition were not enough section 89 makes it clear that contravention of any prohibi- tion is an offence.

.

*