R. v. Wong Wai Sun
Read the full judgment text of CACC 399/1996 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 17 October 1996.
1. This applicant, a man in his late 30s, was tried before H H Judge Brazier in the District Court on one charge of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.
|
CACC000399/1996 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1996, No. 399
------------------- Coram: Power, Ag C.J., Bokhary, J.A. and P. Chan, J. in Court Date of Hearing: 17 October 1996 Date of Delivery of Judgment: 17 October 1996 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ----------------------- Bokhary, J.A.: 1. This applicant, a man in his late 30s, was tried before H H Judge Brazier in the District Court on one charge of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. 2. On June 26 this year, the judge convicted the applicant, but only of the lesser offence of simple possession because, although sure that the applicant was in possession of the drugs in question, the judge did not feel sure that those drugs were for the purpose of trafficking. 3. Since he says that he was not in possession of the drugs at all, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal against his conviction even though it is only of simple possession. 4. The drugs consisted of 25.45 grammes of a mixture containing 13.49 grammes of salts of esters of morphine. 5. Two police officers gave evidence of finding those drugs in the room which the applicant was then sharing with another man who was present at the time and possibly also a third man who was not present at the time. The two officers gave evidence of the applicant admitting that the drugs were his. 6. The judge accepted the officers' evidence. He rejected the applicant's evidence that he was not in possession of the drugs. He did so even though the other man who was present in the flat at the time gave evidence that the drugs were his or maybe partly his. 7. The judge was satisfied that the applicant was in possession of the drugs. There was evidence on which the judge could be so satisfied; and it mattered not that somebody else might have had an ownership interest in the drugs. The conviction was of possession. There was evidence of possession; and the judge's approach to that evidence cannot be faulted. 8. In those circumstances, the application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.
Representation: Wong Wai Sun, Applicant in person Mr A E Schapel (of the Attorney General's Chambers) for the Respondent |