Wong Koon-shing and Another v. The Queen

CACC000181/1973

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 181 OF 1973

-----------------

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & McMullin, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 19th November, 1973.

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. The two appellants were charged with possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking therein contrary to section 7 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134. They were found on board a junk in which there was a very large quantity of opium and morphine. The first appellant was found guilty of the offence as charged. He applied for leave to appeal against his conviction and appeared in person before the Full Court.

2. It is enough to say that he failed to convince the court that he had any valid ground for an appeal and we refused his application for leave to appeal.

3. Mr. Sedgwick appeared for the second appellant and pointed out that the verdict of the jury had been incorrectly recorded in his case. Having considered their verdict, the jury returned to the court. The clerk, in the usual way, then asked the foreman to return a verdict in respect of each of the appellants. When dealing with the second appellant's case the words the clerk used to the jury were "Now, on the offence of possession of dangerous drugs against the second accused, WONG Ah-lan, have you reached a verdict?" The foreman said they had and that the verdict was Guilty by a majority of 6 to 1. The clerk omitted to include the words "for the purpose of unlawful trafficking therein" after the words "dangerous drugs" in his question to the foreman of the jury. I do not think that this is more than a slip. The whole case was a case of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of trafficking. In an appropriate case a judge may leave to the jury the alternative verdict of simple possession, but this was not such a case and no such verdict was ever contemplated or even referred to during the trial. What the jury had to consider was a case of possession for the purposes of trafficking. There was over a ton of dangerous drugs on the junk and I think, in the circumstances, that what the jury intended was a verdict of guilty of being in possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of trafficking. It will be necessary to correct the unfortunate slip made by the clerk in the verdict so far as the second appellant is concerned. The application for leave to appeal of the second appellant is refused.

Representation:

1st Appellant in person.

A. Sedgwick (D.L.A.) assigned for 2nd Appellant.

Duckett, S.C.C. for Ctown/Respondent.