Facts 1. The Appellant was leaving a flat when he was intercepted by the police. Two packets of ice (the “First Batch”) were found in a sling bag which he was carrying. Inside the flat, ten packets of ice and one packet of ketamine (the “Second Batch”) were found in a black bag. A key to the flat was found in his sling bag. Under caution, the Appellant admitted to the police that all the ice belonged to him. 2. The Appellant was charged with a single count of trafficking in all the drugs found. He pleaded not guilty. At trial before a jury, the Appellant’s defence was that he was framed, that he had nothing to do with either batch of drugs and the admission he had made was extracted by force. 3. The prosecution case was conducted on the basis that the Appellant was in possession of both batches of drugs in the two bags. Neither the prosecution nor the defence sought to distinguish between the Appellant’s possession of the drugs in the two bags. However, in closing submissions, the prosecutor suggested that the jury could convict, even if they were satisfied that the Appellant was only in possession of one of the two bags. Defence counsel in his closing submissions postulated several different possible scenarios on the facts, but submitted that the jury had to be satisfied the Appellant was in possession of both bags before they could convict. The trial judge agreed and directed the jury that they could only convict if satisfied that the Appellant was in possession of both bags; it was not enough if they thought he was in possession of only one. In other words, the trial judge gave an “all or nothing” direction to the jury. The jury, by a majority of 6 to 1, found the Appellant guilty. 4. The Appellant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the basis that, notwithstanding that defence counsel had asked for an “all or nothing” direction, the judge should have required the prosecution to amend the charge by splitting it into several charges dealing with different scenarios regarding the Appellant’s possession of the drugs found in different places. 5. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The majority in the Court of Appeal held it was proper to direct the jury on an “all or nothing” basis dealing with one count of trafficking. McWalters JA, dissenting, held that the prosecution should have applied to amend the charge by laying an alternative count of trafficking in the First Batch only. Issue 6. On appeal before the Court of Final Appeal, the Appellant argued that the trial judge was under a duty to place before the jury all possible alternative scenarios which were open to it on the evidence, even if such alternatives were not raised by the parties and even if they were inconsistent with the defence case. The Appellant argued that the trial judge should have split the indictment into three counts involving trafficking in the First Batch, trafficking in the ice in the Second Batch and mere possession of the ketamine in the Second Batch. Since the trial judge failed to do so, there was a danger that the Appellant was unfairly over-convicted. Decision 7. The Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. Reasons 8. The primary responsibility for ensuring a fair trial rests on the trial judge. Alternative verdicts should be put to a jury only if they are obvious and supported by evidence. The way the defence case is run is relevant in determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support an obvious alternative verdict. If an alternative verdict does not arise in the way the defence case is run, this will in most cases be decisive. 9. When faced with the possibility of an alternative verdict, the trial judge has a discretion in deciding on the most appropriate course to take. The trial judge should elicit the views of the parties, which are relevant but not necessarily decisive. Counsel have the duty to assist the court in putting forward relevant considerations, particularly those relating to a fair trial, for the judge to consider. 10. In the present case, there was no evidence to suggest that the ketamine was for the Appellant’s own consumption, nor was this a part of his case. Hence, this was not an obvious alternative verdict. Since it was the Appellant’s defence that he had nothing to do with either batch of drugs, the scenario that the Appellant was in possession of only the First Batch was not an obvious alternative verdict either. 11. In any event, the Appellant was given what was undoubtedly a favourable direction. There was no danger that he was unfairly over-convicted.