HKSAR v. Pang Hiu Ying

DCCC 483/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 483 OF 2017

____________

____________

REASONS FOR VERDICT

1.The defendant faces a charge of "Trafficking in dangerous drugs" (Charge 1) and a charge of "Possession of an apparatus fit and intended for the inhalation of a dangerous drug" (Charge 2).

2.She pleaded guilty to Charge 2 but not guilty to Charge 1.  This trial relates to Charge 1 only.

The Prosecution Case

3.About midnight on 3 November 2016, a team of police officers executed a search warrant at Xi Hu Hotel situated at 3^rd Floor, No.6 Nanking Street, Yau Ma Tei ("the Hotel").

4.They entered into Room 21 of the Hotel ("the Room").  Upon entry, the defendant was the only person in the Room.  On a coffee table in the Room, the Police found the following items :-

(i) 1 transparent resealable plastic bag containing 23 transparent resealable plastic bags which contained a total of 4.14 grammes of a solid containing 3.67 grammes of cocaine; and a piece of white paper with the words "Big K" written on it;

(ii) 1 transparent resealable plastic bag containing a piece of white paper with the words "10+" written on it; and 4 transparent resealable plastic bags which contained a total of 0.71 grammes of a solid containing 0.48 grammes of cocaine;

(iii) 1 transparent resealable plastic bag containing a piece of white paper with the words "Cool 10 $1800; Mother –200" written on it; and 10 paper packets which contained a total of 2.50 grammes of a solid containing 1.88 grammes of ketamine;

(iv) 1 transparent bottle with a pink and black drinking straw[1] (Exhibit P3);

(v) a pair of red scissors;

(vi) a blue lighter; and

(vii) 3 pieces of white paper with the words "25", "140 40" and "White 25 $9000; LEO – 500; K & ME – 400" written on them.

There was also $700 cash[2] lying on a black tray placed on a plastic stool between 2 beds.

5.Under caution, the defendant said "The dangerous drugs are for my own consumption."

6.The prosecution called only 1 witness (WPC 10596) to give evidence.  She described the delay encountered by the Police in gaining entry into the Room.  The whole process was captured by CCTV and the relevant footage[3] was played in open court.

The Defence Case

7.The defendant elected not to give evidence or call any witness. This is her right; I drew no adverse inference against her in this regard.

Assessment and Analysis of Evidence

8.The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove each element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

9.The defendant has a clear record. I have directed myself on her good character accordingly.

10.The defence has practically admitted the entire prosecution case. Defence counsel Mr. Davies submitted that according to the Admitted Facts, the person who rented the Room was a middle-aged local female[4] (i.e. unlikely to be the defendant). No room key was found on the defendant. The CCTV footage of the Hotel revealed that the Room had over a hundred entries and exits by people of unknown identities between 11:00 a.m. on 2 November and 2:00 a.m. on 3 November 2016[5]. The so-called "stalling" of the Police from entering the Room was only about 30 seconds[6]. Any drug addict would be reluctant to open the door under those circumstances. Finally, the defendant's admission was vague. No one is able to say what she was admitting to. She has already pleaded guilty to Charge 2. She admitted possession of the bottle with a drinking straw(Exhibit P3), which contained about 25 millilitres of a liquid containing traces of cocaine.

11.As a juror, I have reached the following conclusions based on the evidence before me :-

(i) the 27 plastic bags of cocaine and 10 packets of ketamine are neatly packed, which strongly indicated that they were readily available for trafficking;

(ii) the written notes appeared to be some form of sales record; and their format seemed to be indicative of an honour "chit system". In tavern's terminology, the drug buyers seemed to be allowed to "run a tab" on their purchase; and

(iii) the Room was used for selling drugs or even as a divan.

12.Upon reaching the above conclusions, the next question is: What was the defendant's role in relation to the Room? In my view, there is no definitive answer.

13.Numerous people of unknown identities have entered and exited the Room within the 13-hour period prior to the police raid. Some people who entered the Room had also entered the adjacent guest room and vice versa. There remains a genuine possibility that the defendant was simply one of the many users of the Room, who just happened to be there when the Police knocked on the door. She might well have been a drug buyer/user too. I am also certain that she was aware of the presence and nature of the drugs found in the Room. But was she in possession of those drugs and was she trafficking in those drugs? As a juror, I cannot be sure to either question. Other than her presence, there is no further evidence showing her connection with the drugs found inside the Room. The $700 cashwas simply placed on a tray and was not found on her. Her 1-line verbal admission is too vague and equivocal. I need not elaborate any further, suffice it for me to mention that right at the moment when the police officers were knocking on doors in the corridor, there was a female in a light coloured dress exiting the Room and entering the adjacent guest room[7]. At least one male police officer saw her standing in the corridor waiting for the door of the adjacent guest room to open. That female was equally as suspicious (or innocent) as the defendant.

14.Based on the above analysis, there is clearly a doubt regarding the defendant's possession of the drugs found inside the Room, needless to say her intention of trafficking in those drugs. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I find her not guilty of Charge 1.