HKSAR v. Wong Chung Yit

CACC000041/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1998, No.41
(Criminal)

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

Coram : Hon. Power, V.-P., Mayo and Stuart-Moore, JJ.A.

Date of Hearing : 30 June 1998

Date of Judgment : 30 June 1998

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Power, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant in this matter faced one charge of possession of a dangerous drug. He alleged that he, on 27th May at 1st Floor, No.346, Shun Ning Road, Cheung Sha Wan, had in his possession 26.32 grammes of a mixture containing 21.00 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. He was found guilty after trial before H. H. Judge Barnes and sentenced to imprisonment for three years and now seeks leave to appeal against that conviction.

2. The applicant was stopped and searched on the landing of the first floor of the premises mentioned in the charge and the drugs were found. He said that the white powder was for his own consumption and he then volunteered to take the police to search his home. This was done but nothing was found. He made a statement under caution at the police station in which he said he bought the drugs for $6,000 and was on his way home with them at the time of apprehension.

3. When he came to give evidence he said, however, that he never had the drugs in his possession, that his statement was an involuntary and untrue one and that he had been bullied into giving it. He called two witnesses in an endeavour to establish that no drugs had been found on him.

4. The trial judge, after exhaustive findings, rejected the evidence of the applicant and his witnesses and accepted that of the police officers.

5. The applicant, in his sole ground, suggests that the judge had acknowledged that there were six doubts in the prosecution case and that she must have been prejudiced, in the light of that, to have convicted him. It is certainly true that six matters were mentioned by the judge in her Statement of Findings which she said had been suggested by Counsel for the defendant as throwing doubts upon the prosecution case. She set out those six matters and said that she had carefully considered all of the evidence and borne in mind the submissions of Counsel before she reached her findings. Those findings, as we have already said, were that the applicant and his witnesses were untruthful and that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses correctly stated what had occurred.

6. There is nothing in the suggestion that the judge somehow had failed to consider the matters which she set out and numbered 1 - 6. The fact of the matter is that she considered all of them and rejected them. There is nothing that is in any way unsafe or unsatisfactory about this conviction and the application is dismissed.

Representation:

Ms Polly Wan, S.G.C. (D.P.P.) for the Respondent

Applicant in person