Tokens: 9
.
In
paragraph
42
of
the
judgment
,
the
Court
finds
that
“
[
m]ore
generally
,
the
domestic
case
-
law
presented
to
this
Court
seems
to
indicate
that
such
decisions
were
at
times
unpredictable
.
”
The
observations
submitted
to
the
Court
cited
only
one
reference
–
that
of
G.
and
M.
No
further
examples
of
“
unpredictability
”
were
given
.
Given
the
scarcity
of
details
on
the
cases
,
and
with
one
case
having
been
decided
as
far
back
as
1998
,
it
is
difficult
to
assess
how
“
unpredictable
”
the
decision
of
the
Attorney
General
was
.
But
even
with
this
drawback
and
even
if
one
were
simply
to
concede
that
there
was
some
form
of
inconsistency
,
one
case
is
simply
not
enough
to
amount
to
consistent
unpredictability[1
]
.
Hence
,
I
find
it
impossible
to
go
along
with
the
Court
’s
reasoning
as
reflected
in
the
last
sentence
of
paragraph
42
.
No
legal
adviser
,
either
before
or
after
the
commission
of
the
crime
or
at
the
time
of
arraignment
,
would
have
taken
the
risk
of
assuring
the
applicant
that
with
953
ecstasy
pills
his
case
would
be
decided
by
the
Court
of
Magistrates
and
thus
attract
the
lesser
penalty
.
Given
the
case
-
law
record
,
this
type
of
legal
advice
would
have
been
and
still
is
inconceivable
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O