R. v. Chan Chuen Hong

HCMA000525/1996

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.525 OF 1996

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

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

Coram : Hon Patrick Chan, J. in Court

Date of hearing : 24 July 1996

Date of judgment : 24 July 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The appellant was convicted of one count of trafficking in dangerous drug and one count of possession of dangerous drug. He was sentenced to 12 months and 3 months imprisonment respectively, both terms to run consecutively, making a total of 15 months. He appeals against conviction.

2. The facts are these. The officers stopped and searched a person who was the 1st defendant in the court below. That was outside No.213 of Tai Nan Street. The dangerous drugs were found on him. He told the police that he obtained dangerous drugs from another person for $220. He also led the police to Room 3 in the premises. There were altogether about 10 rooms. They located the appellant. They searched him and found $220 on him. The room was also occupied by the appellant. Upon his search, some dangerous drugs and other items connected with drugs or containing traces of drugs were found inside the room. According to the officers, inside the premises, the police asked the 1st defendant to point out to the police who supplied the drugs to him and the 1st defendant indicated the appellant. That was done in the presence of the appellant. Furthermore, the officers also gave evidence that the appellant admitted that he had supplied dangerous drugs to the 1st defendant and that the drugs in Room 3 belonged to him.

3. Both the appellant and the 1st defendant gave evidence at the trial. The 1st defendant said that he went to deliver newspaper to the appellant and not dangerous drugs. The appellant admitted to be a drug addict. However, he denied having given any drugs to the 1st defendant. He also denied that the drugs in question were found in his room. He said they were in fact found in another room, i.e. Room 4 on the staircase.

4. It is not disputed that he resided in Room 3. The learned Magistrate acknowledged that there were certain discrepancies in the evidence of the officers, such as that relating to the ID card, the persons that were present during the search and other matters. Before me, the appellant submitted that he had in fact had a witness, a Mr Lai Kwan, who was the occupier of Room 4 where the drugs were found. He said that he intended to issue a subpoena against this man but found out that the court had somehow served on the wrong place. However, he said that he would not pursue this because, I think quite rightly, this person was unlikely to give evidence in his favour while implicating himself. The only other point made by the appellant was that there was no evidence of the value of the dangerous drugs in the 1st defendant's possession, and therefore, he said it would be impossible that the value would be about $220.

5. In my view, there is ample evidence against the appellant. Apart from the money found on him, first of all, there was the admission made by him to the police and secondly, there was the identification by the 1st defendant in his presence. In respect of the possession charge, the officers gave clear evidence as to where the dangerous drugs were found, that is to say in Room 3 : inside the drawer, there were the plastic bag and the phials containing the dangerous drugs, the cards, spoons and syringes all with traces of drugs.

6. I think it is important to note one of the answers given by the appellant during cross-examination during the trial. That appears on page 43 of the bundle. A question was put to him : "Cards, syringes, broken spoons were found inside your room?" The answer was this : "Maybe because I am a drug addict." This could be an indication that the drugs and the other articles were indeed found in his room. It is irrelevant or rather immaterial whatever the value of the drugs found on the 1st defendant. It is a matter between the 1st defendant and the appellant as to how much the drugs was to be sold at. In the circumstances, I do not see any merits at all in this appeal and it is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr Vincent Wong, Crown Counsel, for Crown

Appellant, Chan Chuen Hong, in person