Mr. Fok Ming-hung v. Mr. Chui Hing-hong

DCCJ006114/1980

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT KOWLOON

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 6114 OF 1980

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

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

Coram: A.L. Leathlean, D.J.

Date of Judgment: 26th March, 1981.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is an action for possession on the ground that the defendant tenant has used, or suffered or permitted the use of, the premises in suit for an illegal purpose, namely, the unlawful storage of what is commonly called heroin (c.f. section 53(2)(e) of the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance).

2. It is not in dispute that on April 24th, 1980, the defendant was convicted upon his own confession of having, as the occupier thereof, permitted the premises to be kept or used for the purpose of unlawful storage therein of 25.66 grammes of a mixture containing 6.92 grammes of what is commonly called heroin. The court record of those proceedings, which has been proved in evidence, discloses that police officers acting on information received raided the premises and found the cubicle in question padlocked. Upon the arrival of the defendant and his wife the defendant was found in physical possession of a key which fitted the padlock. The drug, contained in 54 packets and a polythene bag, was found hidden inside what is described as a gap under the bed. Elsewhere in the cubicle were found paraphernalia suitable for packing heroin and a rent receipt in the name of the defendant. Through his solicitor the defendant told the magistrate that the drug had been left with him earlier in the day by a friend who was supposed to collect it later on. Before me the defendant has not persisted in that, or, indeed, any other story, although in his defence he pleaded: -

"The packet of dangerous drugs found in my room was belonged to my friend who put it in my room for several hours and I have no idea the content of the packet."

3. That the defendant was convicted, and rightly convicted, of permitting the premises to be kept or used for the purpose of the unlawful storage therein of heroin is therefore proved to the hilt. That proof of such conduct on a single occasion warrants eviction was decided by the Court of Appeal in England in S. Schneiders & Sons, Ltd. v. Abrahams⁽¹⁾ (per Atkin, L.J., at page 311). It would, however, have been otherwise had the defendant been convicted of an offence, e.g., physical possession of a packet of heroin simpliciter, with which the premises had nothing to do beyond merely being the scene of its commission (ibid. per Scruton, L.J., at page 310).

4. Judgment for the plaintiff.

5. Dated this 26th day of March, 1981.

Representation:

(1) (1925) K.B. 301