Cheung So-kau v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 342/1970 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 20 July 1970.
1. In this appeal against a conviction of possession of a small quantity of dangerous drugs the appellant advanced before me the same case as he put to the learned magistrate, namely how could he have had dangerous drugs in his jacket pocket when it was obviously so cut or torn as not to be capable of holding anything. In his judgment the magistrate said that: "The torn pocket explanation has now become so common as to be ludicrous, particularly as it is never mentioned till the day of trial, as
|
CACC000342/1970 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 342 OF 1970 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Mills-Owens J. in Court. Date of Judgment: 20 July 1970 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. In this appeal against a conviction of possession of a small quantity of dangerous drugs the appellant advanced before me the same case as he put to the learned magistrate, namely how could he have had dangerous drugs in his jacket pocket when it was obviously so cut or torn as not to be capable of holding anything. In his judgment the magistrate said that: "The torn pocket explanation has now become so common as to be ludicrous, particularly as it is never mentioned till the day of trial, as in this case." This comes dangerously near to suggesting that there is an obligation to give notice of such a defence, but I am satisfied this was not intended. It also appears that the magistrate was in error in saying that the appellant said in evidence that he was taken to the police station in a taxi when in fact the appellant did not say that and was not therefore at variance with his witness as to the manner in which the two of them were taken to the police station. However the evidence was cogent and the points mentioned above do not lead me to consider the conviction to be unsound or unsafe, wherefore the appeal is dismissed.
20th July, 1970. Representation: Appellant in person. Lucas (Senior Crown Counsel) for Respondent. Oral judgment reduced into writing |