Mok Kwok Wah v. The Queen

CACC000239/1972

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 239 OF 1972

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

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 18th May, 1972.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The Appellant appeals against his conviction on a charge of possession of a dangerous drug for the purpose of trafficking.

2. A Corporal of Police testified that at 1:50 p.m. on 30th December last he saw the Appellant in the street, searched him and found on his person a packet which later was found to contain 8.4 grammes of a mixture containing 2.8 grammes of salts of esters of morphine. The other witnesses were concerned solely with the custody of the drugs thereafter and their analysis by the Government Chemist.

3. The Appellant elected to make an unsworn statement from the dock and his case was that these drugs were planted on him because he declined to assist the police in some way that they required. He said that on that day he was drinking tea in a restaurant at 11 a.m. in the company of two friends; that at noon a constable LAI Hon-sam came to see him and asked him to go to the Hung Hom Police Station; that he accompanied LAI Hon-sam to the Police Station and waited there in the C.I.D. room until 3 p.m. when Corporal SO Man-loong and another constable came to see him. Corporal SO Man-loong was the police officer who had testified that he had arrested the Appellant in the street at 1:50 p.m. One of the persons alleged by the Appellant to have been in his company in the restaurant was called as a witness. He agreed that he had been with the Appellant on 30th December but said he was not with him at about 2 p.m. He had last seen him at 11 a.m. when he had gone away with Constable LAI Hon-sam from the restaurant. LAI Hon-sam having come to ask him to go to the Police Station. It is not without significance that not one word of this was put to Constable LAI Hon-sam when he was called to give evidence.

4. The learned magistrate in his findings dealt with the case very fully and he came to the conclusion that the sworn evidence of the Police Corporal was to be believed and that the unsworn testimony of the Appellant and the evidence of his witness raised no doubts in his mind. It is quite impossible for me to say that he came to a wrong conclusion. Matters of fact are primarily for the magistrate at the trial: this Court can interfere only where there is good reason to believe that his conclusion was erroneous.

5. The appeal must be dismissed.

18th May, 1972.

Representation: