THE QUEEN v. LEUNG PING LAM

THE QUEEN v. LEUNG PING LAM

Sections 47(1)(c) and (d) and 47(3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance impermissibly shift the burden on essential elements (possession and knowledge), violate S.8 A.11(1) of the Bill of Rights Ordinance and cannot be justified under the BORO limitation tests; accordingly they must be treated as repealed in this case.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. LEUNG PING LAM
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Defendant: Leung Ping Lam
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 August 1991
Case Number
DCCC235/1991
Procedural Posture
Criminal Dangerous Drugs / Ruling on Constitutional Challenge at Close of Crown's Case
Outcome
Sections 47(1)(c) and (d) and 47(3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Cap.134) are declared to contravene S.8 A.11(1) of the Bill of Rights Ordinance and are to be considered repealed for the purposes of this case.
Legal Topics
Presumption of Innocence, Statutory Presumptions of Possession and Knowledge, Possession for Trafficking, Bill of Rights Ordinance S.8 A.11(1)
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Human Rights Presumption of Innocence Statutory Presumptions of Possession and Knowledge Possession for Trafficking Bill of Rights Ordinance S.8 A.11(1)

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Leung Ping Lam

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Dangerous Drugs / Ruling on Constitutional Challenge at Close of Crown's Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether S.47(1)(c) and (d) and S.47(3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance violate S.8 A.11(1) of the Bill of Rights Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether any limitation can save those presumptions under the BORO limitation tests

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 47(1)(c) and (d) and 47(3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance impermissibly shift the burden on essential elements (possession and knowledge), violate S.8 A.11(1) of the Bill of Rights Ordinance and cannot be justified under the BORO limitation tests; accordingly they must be treated as repealed in this case.

Court Disposition

Sections 47(1)(c) and (d) and 47(3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Cap.134) are declared to contravene S.8 A.11(1) of the Bill of Rights Ordinance and are to be considered repealed for the purposes of this case.

Orders

  • S.47(1)(c) and (d) and S.47(3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance Cap.134 are, pursuant to S.3 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance, to be treated as repealed insofar as they contravene S.8 A.11(1) and are inapplicable in this case.