The Queen v. Chan Koon Shing
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 935/1996 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 20 September 1996.
1. The appellant appeals against his conviction for being in possession of apparatus intended for the injection of dangerous drugs and the sentence of nine months' imprisonment imposed upon him for the offence. In fact Mr Wright the learned magistrate ordered that three months of the sentence should be served concurrently to another sentence being served by the appellant for being in possession of dangerous drugs. This was an entirely separate case.
|
HCMA000935/1996
----------------- Coram: Hon Mayo JA in Court (sitting as an additional High Court Judge) Date of hearing: 20 September 1996 Date of judgment: 20 September 1996 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Mayo JA: 1. The appellant appeals against his conviction for being in possession of apparatus intended for the injection of dangerous drugs and the sentence of nine months' imprisonment imposed upon him for the offence. In fact Mr Wright the learned magistrate ordered that three months of the sentence should be served concurrently to another sentence being served by the appellant for being in possession of dangerous drugs. This was an entirely separate case. 2. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned an Ambulance Attendant who according to the appellant appeared to have been attached to the Fire Services Department gave evidence of proceeding to a toilet at restaurant premises in Thompson Road, Wanchai and finding a male person lying unconscious on the floor naked from the waist down with a syringe inserted into his thigh. He arranged for the man who it subsequently transpired was the appellant to be taken to hospital. A police officer also gave evidence of attending the scene whose evidence in all important respects basically supported the evidence of the Ambulance Attendant. 3. The appellant gave evidence at his trial. He claimed that after having a meal at the restaurant in question he visited the toilet. The next thing he remembered was regaining consciousness in hospital. He denied that he had used the syringe. 4. Perhaps not surprisingly the magistrate believed the prosecution witnesses and rejected the testimony of the appellant. The appellant has not placed before me any reason to justify interfering with the magistrate's findings. The appeal against conviction is dismissed. Sentence 5. The sentence was in conformity with sentences passed for this type of offence and the appeal against sentence is also dismissed.
Representation: Mr Arthur Luk for Crown Prosecutor Chan Koon Shing- Appellant in person/present |