The Queen v. Yu Kwok Lam

HCMA000867/1986

BETWEEN

Coram: Roberts, C. J.

Date of judgment: 11th November, 1986.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. YU Kwok-lam was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking and of resisting a police officer.  He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment on the first charge and one month's imprisonment concurrent on the second. He appeals against his conviction but not against his sentence.

2. The facts put before the magistrate were within a very narrow compass. On the afternoon of 11th March, police officers were on duty in the Tung Tau Estate, when they saw a man who turned out to be the defendant acting in what seemed to them to be a suspicious manner.

3. One of the police officers approached the defendant, told him that he was suspected of having dangerous drugs in his possession, and carried out a search. This police officer, who was the first prosecution witness  ("P.W.1")  said that he found a polythene bag containing white powder in the right-hand trouser pocket of the defendant.

4. When P. W. 1 told the defendant that he was about to be arrested, the defendant put up a struggle. The defendant was subdued with the assistance of a third police officer who arrived shortly afterwards.

5. The defendant gave evidence to the effect that he had been to the Robert Black Clinic, which was nearby, for the purpose of obtaining a dose of methadone. After he had taken it he was on his way home when he was intercepted by two police officers. He was taken to a side lane, where P. W. 1 searched him. He never had any drugs on his person and never struggled with the police officers. He had seen P. W. 1 retrieve a packet of drugs from the top of some wires in the ceiling of a corridor.

6. On the one side, there is the evidence of two prosecution witnesses that the drugs were found in the possession of the defendant, and on the other, his explanation that they planted the drugs on him.

7. This is essentially a question of fact for the magistrate to determine, having had the advantage of seeing the witnesses himself. Having done so, he was satisfied that the prosecution witnesses were witnesses of truth and disbelieved the defendant.

8. There is no suggestion that he misdirected himself as to the law. There are no grounds on which I could interfere with his finding of fact and the appeal is dismissed.

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Mr. P. J. Dykes, Senior Crown Counsel, for Crown.