Taylor J:

This is a Chandu Appeal. Police, apparently acting on information received, raided a coffee shop and in a drawer of the counter found a cigarette tin containing nine small packets of prepared opium; they arrested the shopkeeper. They did not find any pipe or other gear. The drawer was not locked; it contained about 15 small books, in which sales to credit customers were entered, and other articles indicating that the shopkeeper and his assistants all had access to the drawer and in fact used it. The shopkeeper was convicted of possession of the opium. He now appeals.

The defence at the trial was that the facts did not show that the accused had possession of the opium because he used the drawer jointly with others. The learned Magistrate in a very long and careful judgment rejected this defence for two main reasons. The first was his view that under s. 37 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance the burden of proving his innocence is on the accused. This is an over statement - the section has the effect of shifting the burden of proof of particular facts but that does not amount to shifting the general burden. The second reason was that he disbelieved the evidence of the