Read the full judgment text of CACC 000131/1979 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 26 February 1980 before Roberts, C.J., McMullin, J.A. and Leonard, J..
Criminal law – Dangerous Drugs Ordinance – possession for the purpose of unlawful trafficking – presumptions under sections 46, 47(1) and 47(3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance – possession of a key to the premises giving rise to the statutory presumption of possession – Crown to prove foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt – defendant to rebut presumption on balance of probabilities – what suffices to rebut the presumption – innocent possession of a key not enough; possession of the drugs must be rebutted – silence carries grave risk where presumption operates – appeal against conviction – five defendants at flat where drugs and mixing/packaging equipment found – D1 the tenant and ring-leader convicted of separate car charge – D2 acquitted at close of trial – D3 a frequent visitor and close friend of D1 in possession of a key who did not give evidence – D4 the mistress of D1 in possession of a key with the run of the flat – D5 a 16¾-year-old female sub-tenant of Room B with a key, found in pyjamas on the sofa when police entered – whether each of D3, D4 and D5 rebutted the presumption on the totality of the evidence – whether D5's conviction was unsafe – obligation of District Judge under section 80 of the District Court Ordinance to record a short statement of reasons for the verdict – whether a District Judge must set out his full mental processes, the whole of the law, and a review of the whole of the evidence – whether a District Judge must explain why a defendant's evidence is disbelieved – appeal of D3 against conviction dismissed – appeal of D4 against conviction and sentence dismissed – leave to appeal granted to D5 and her conviction quashed on the ground of uneasiness as to its safety – Full Court decisions in LAM Tin-chung v. R. (1970) HKLR 105 and R. v. R.E. Low (1961) HKLR 13 followed in preference to obiter remarks in LAW KEUNG v. R. Crim. App. 625/72 – minor misdirection in trial judge's formulation of the presumption treated as immaterial.
Legal issues: D3 – Rebuttal of presumption of possession under ss.46 and 47 Dangerous Drugs Ordinance · D4 – Rebuttal of presumption of possession under ss.46 and 47 Dangerous Drugs Ordinance · D5 – Whether the conviction was unsafe and ought to be quashed · Obligation of a District Judge under s.80 of the District Court Ordinance
Outcome: Appeal of D3 (CHAN King-man) against conviction dismissed; appeal of D4 (CHOW Ka-suen) against conviction and sentence dismissed; leave to appeal against conviction and sentence granted to D5 (SHUM Yee-ling) and conviction quashed.