The Queen v. Chan Wai-chung
Read the full judgment text of CACC 364/1996 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 4 December 1996.
2. The applicant admitted possession of the drugs concerned but denied trafficking. He was, throughout the trial, represented by counsel. On the day of the offence, he was in premises rented by him. The police raided the premises and inside, the drugs concerned were found. The circumstances are important. The drugs were in large plastic bags containing 16 smaller individual packets. Nearby were scales, scissors and adhesive tapes, also a black bag containing $34,000.
|
CACC000364/1996
THE QUEEN v CHAN WAI-CHUNG ----------------- Coram: Mortimer and Mayo JJA, and Sears J in Court Date of Judgment: 4 December 1996 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Mortimer JA (giving the judgment of the Court): On 3 June 1996 the applicant was convicted after trial by His Honour Judge Surman in the District Court of trafficking in a mixture containing 37.17 grammes of heroin. He now applies for leave to appeal against his conviction. The facts 2. The applicant admitted possession of the drugs concerned but denied trafficking. He was, throughout the trial, represented by counsel. On the day of the offence, he was in premises rented by him. The police raided the premises and inside, the drugs concerned were found. The circumstances are important. The drugs were in large plastic bags containing 16 smaller individual packets. Nearby were scales, scissors and adhesive tapes, also a black bag containing $34,000. At trial 3. The applicant's case was that the drugs were for his own consumption. In support of this he gave evidence about his earnings, saying that he had bought the drugs in that quantity to save money and to avoid the risk of detection when buying in the street. He said that he had packaged the drugs, as they were found, for his own convenience. 4. Having heard and seen the witnesses, including the applicant, the judge convicted him. The application 5. The applicant seeks now to raise a number of matters. The only one which is relevant to this application is whether the admission of facts was understood and made by him. On examination of the papers it is clear there is nothing in this point. At one stage of the trial, there was a problem as to whether the admissions of fact had been made. The judge properly adjourned the trial so that the matter could be discussed between the applicant and his counsel. The matter was clarified to the judge's satisfaction and the trial continued. No other arguable point is raised. The application is refused.
Representation: Applicant in person Mr A.A. Bruce QC and Miss Alice Chan (Crown Prosecutor) for Crown/Respondent |