Li Man v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 1002/1978 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The Crown has not sought to uphold the verdict of the learned magistrate in this case. The Appellant was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking and was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. It is against that conviction that the appeal has been brought. The Appellant was also convicted on his own plea of possession of an instrument fit and intended for the injecting of a dangerous drug and for that offence was sentenced to three months' imprison
|
CACC001002/1978
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J. A. Date of Judgment: 8th November, 1978. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The Crown has not sought to uphold the verdict of the learned magistrate in this case. The Appellant was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking and was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. It is against that conviction that the appeal has been brought. The Appellant was also convicted on his own plea of possession of an instrument fit and intended for the injecting of a dangerous drug and for that offence was sentenced to three months' imprisonment concurrent. 2. The evidence was that at the time of his arrest the Appellant was injecting himself and that he was also in possession of twelve packets containing a total of 2 grammes of a mixture containing .3 gramme of salts of esters of morphine. He did not give evidence himself or call any other witness. It is not clear on what basis the learned magistrate made his finding that the drugs in the twelve packets were possessed for the purpose of trafficking. He made no mention of the presumptions arising by virtue of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance and has not recorded that he warned the Appellant about the effect of those presumptions. There was no evidence to justify the finding without the assistance of the presumption under s. 46 and it was the duty of the magistrate to give a warning: see Cheng Gee v Reg. Cr. App. 1976 No. 432. He may have done so, but we cannot be certain that he did. The Appellant is aged sixty-three years. He has seventeen previous convictions relating to dangerous drugs but none for trafficking. Although there were twelve packets, the quantity of drugs in them was very small. In all the circumstances the Appellant might, if warned, have been able to rebut the presumption of trafficking. 3. I allow the appeal to the extent of substituting a conviction for unlawful possession of dangerous drugs and for that offence impose a sentence of three months' imprisonment concurrent. 8th November 1978. Representation: |