3 Jul 2007
Because s.47(1) and (2) are disproportionate if read as imposing persuasive burdens, they must be read as creating only an evidential onus; the trial judge's directions imposing a persuasive burden on the appellant therefore caused substantial and grave injustice, warranting quashing of the conviction and ordering a retrial.
11 Jan 2006
Leave to appeal is granted to the prosecution alone to pursue the certified points of law; the Court will determine whether s.47 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance constitutionally shifts the persuasive burden, merely shifts the evidential burden, or is wholly unconstitutional; hearing dates fixed for full determination.
28 Oct 1988
The trial judge's acceptance of the police testimony, the applicant's conduct and admissions, and the inference of joint enterprise established possession for the purpose of trafficking beyond reasonable doubt; the s.47 presumption was unnecessary to the conviction; there was no basis to conclude the conviction was unsafe, so leave to appeal was rightly refused.
18 Dec 1973
Although the judge's initial verbal definition of 'possession' omitted an explicit mental element, the summing-up as a whole and the statutory presumptions under s.47 made clear that the jury had to be satisfied of knowledge; any misdirection was not such as to cause a substantial miscarriage of justice. Possession was established and, by reason of quantity, a presumption arose that it was for the purpose of unlawful trafficking; convictions therefore stand and the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.