The Queen v. Cheung Ho Sang

Read the full judgment text of HCMA 947/1996 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 20 September 1996.

1. The appellant appeals against his conviction for possession of dangerous drugs. According to the prosecution case the appellant was seen by two police officers sitting on the stairs in a Wilson Carpark on 4 March 1996. He was searched and a small quantity of dangerous drugs was found on his person. According to the police officers he claimed that the dangerous drugs were for his own consumption.

Case No.HCMA 947/1996
Court
High Court CFI
Date20 Sep 1996
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCMA000947/1996

IN THE SUPREME COURT  
   
  1996, No. 947
  Magistracy Appeal

BETWEEN    
  THE QUEEN Respondent
  and  
  CHEUNG HO SANG Appellant

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

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 possession of dangerous drugs. According to the prosecution case the appellant was seen by two police officers sitting on the stairs in a Wilson Carpark on 4 March 1996. He was searched and a small quantity of dangerous drugs was found on his person. According to the police officers he claimed that the dangerous drugs were for his own consumption.

2. At his trial before the learned magistrate Mr Holmes the appellant gave evidence to the effect that the dangerous drugs had been planted on him by the officers.

3. The magistrate was faced with a direct conflict of evidence. For the reasons he gave the magistrate accepted the evidence of the officers and rejected the appellant's evidence. It is pertinent to observe that when Mr Holmes was sentencing the appellant, the appellant stated that the dangerous drugs had been for his own use. There is nothing in what the appellant had said before me that satisfies me that the findings of the magistrate should in any way be interfered with. The application is dismissed.

  (Simon Mayo)
  sitting as an additional High Court Judge

Representation:

Mr Arthur Luk for Crown Prosecutor

Cheung Ho Sang - Appellant in person/present