Chan Pui v. The Queen

Read the full judgment text of CACC 242/1972 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.

1. This is an appeal against a conviction for possession of a dangerous drug for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

Case No.CACC 242/1972
Court
Court of Appeal
Date
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACC000242/1972

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 1972

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

BETWEEN    
  CHAN PUI Appellant
  and  
  THE QUEEN Respondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 18th May, 1972.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is an appeal against a conviction for possession of a dangerous drug for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

2. Evidence was given by a Police Constable that he stopped the Appellant in the street and searched him and that he found in his jacket pocket seven packets of what proved to be dangerous drugs, being 4.2 grammes of a mixture containing 2 grammes of salts of esters of morphine. The officer said that he arrested the Appellant in Tung Ching Road near Lok Sin Road: he denied in cross-examination that he arrested him in Hok Lo Street. The only other witness for the prosecution was concerned with the custody and the analysis of the drugs.

3. The Appellant gave evidence on affirmation and his case before the learned magistrate was that he did not have the drugs in his possession. He alleged that this was a fabricated story told by the Police.

4. That is the substance of the evidence. On that evidence the learned magistrate found as a fact that the Appellant was in possession of the drugs and there was, of course, a presumption by reason of the quantity of drugs concerned that they were there for the purpose of trafficking.

5. Before me the Appellant has admitted that he was in possession of the drugs and now at this late stage seeks to assert that he had them for his own purposes and not for trafficking. It is too late to raise a defence of that kind. I see no reason whatever to interfere with the conviction and the appeal is dismissed.

18th May, 1972.

Representation: