HKSAR v. Mizanur Rahman

CACC 235/2024

[2025] HKCA 391

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 235 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO 379 OF 2023)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.This is an application by the applicant for bail pending his appeal against conviction and sentence.

2.On 18 October 2024, following a trial before District Court Judge Lily Wong (the judge)  the applicant was convicted of three charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug.  On 25 October 2024, the judge sentenced the applicant to a total sentence of 44 months’ imprisonment.

3.On 8 November 2024, the applicant filed a notice of application for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence.  He appears in person in this application, having had legal aid refused for his appeal against conviction and sentence.

4.The case against the applicant was fairly straightforward.  It involved the police conducting a covert decoy operation observing the applicant selling drugs and a police officer posing as a customer buying drugs from him on 26 November and 16 December 2022.  Upon his arrest on 16 December 2022, after selling drugs to the undercover police officer, an additional quantity of drugs in three plastic bags, one plastic bag containing seven packets of cocaine, were found nearby in a sprinkler valve cabinet, which the applicant had hidden for easy retrieval upon any future sales. 

5.On 15 April 2025, the applicant filed a letter with the court listing 48 grounds of appeal against conviction, in which he criticises or supplements the judge’s reasons or findings.  At today’s hearing, the applicant filed 3 additional grounds of appeal against conviction.  He mainly questions the evidence and credibility of the police officers, which the judge accepted.  As noted by the judge in her reasons for verdict, the applicant did not call evidence in his defence, and whilst no adverse inference was drawn against him for doing so, it meant that there was nothing from him to undermine, contradict or explain the evidence put before the court by the prosecution.  The judge, in her comprehensive and detailed reasons for verdict, summarised the evidence and addressed the issues raised at trial.  As noted by the judge, the prosecution case mainly rested on the evidence of the undercover police officer, whose evidence was vigorously challenged at trial.  She found that all the criticisms against him were unmeritorious and that he was a credible and reliable witness.

6.In Ground 44, the applicant stated that he did not give evidence at his trial because of advice given by his lawyer.  He referred to a High Court case in which he was arrested in 2019.  He claims that he was set up by the police and that trial resulted in his acquittal.  He further claims that he was arrested again by the same officers involved in the present case as revenge and was set up.  Ms Florrie Chan, for the respondent, points out that the applicant was arrested by officers of Special Duties Squad 1 of Yau Tsim District for the involvement in the High Court case, whereas in the present case, the operation was carried out by Special Duties Squad 1 of Wan Chai District involving different officers.  When queried about this matter, the applicant said that although 5 police officers gave evidence at his present trial, there were 2 other police officers that were involved but were not called to give evidence.  He was unable to provide any details of their identity.  He confirmed that this was not a matter that was raised at his trial.

7.The applicant’s complaint against his sentence is completely unjustified.  He was actively selling drugs on the street and ensuring that he was dealing with just the required quantity each time he transacted with a customer.  The rest of his cache of drugs was strategically hidden nearby so that they would not be found in his possession. 

8.At the time of the offence, he was a Form 8 recognizance holder, receiving welfare benefits since 2007.  He had married a permanent resident with whom he had a son.  The judge again gave very detailed reasons for sentence which are unassailable.

9.The applicant’s complaints against his conviction and sentence are without substance.  Accordingly, his application for bail pending appeal is refused.

Ms Florrie Chan, ADPP, of Department of Justice, for the respondent

The applicant appeared in person