The Queen v. Lun Wai Choi
Read the full judgment text of CACC 424/1987 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. It is not disputed that on the 20th March, 1987 the applicant was travelling in a taxi somewhere near Castle Peak Road where he was stopped by the Police at a road block. The Police found on his person three paper bags containing the dangerous drugs mentioned in the charge. Under caution he said to the Police that he had brought the dangerous drugs with him for his consumption and that he had bought them for $3,500.
|
CACC000424/1987
BETWEEN
_______________ Coram: Hon. Yang, Ag. C.J., Clough & Power, JJ.A. Date of Hearing: 23rd February 1988 Date of Delivery of Judgment: 23rd February 1988 ----------------------- J U D G M E N T ----------------------- Yang, Ag. C.J.: 1. It is not disputed that on the 20th March, 1987 the applicant was travelling in a taxi somewhere near Castle Peak Road where he was stopped by the Police at a road block. The Police found on his person three paper bags containing the dangerous drugs mentioned in the charge. Under caution he said to the Police that he had brought the dangerous drugs with him for his consumption and that he had bought them for $3,500. 2. The Learned Trial Judge did not accept the applicant's evidence that he had bought the drugs for his own consumption and found the applicant guilty of possession of the dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. 3. The applicant was cross-examined about a period of some 4-5 months during which he said he was unemployed. It is agreed between the Crown and Mr. Stirling today that this applicant had been in prison for another offence of trafficking for the possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of trafficking and was released from prison on the 18th December 1986. 4. Under cross-examination this applicant said that he had been employed for about a month or so prior to his arrest on the 20th March but that for a period of some 4-5 months before he took up his employment he was unemployed. Simple arithmetic will show that he was employed from about mid-February to the time of his arrest, and if he was unemployed for 4-5 months prior to mid-February 1987 then he would have begun his period of unemployment from about mid-September 1986 when he was still in prison. 5. Mr. Stirling does not complain that Crown Counsel in the Court below deliberately embarked upon a series of questions designed to show that the man was in prison for part of the period of unemployment. Indeed, Mr. Stirling concedes that the questions were asked because Crown Counsel probably inadvertently overlooked the fact that he was in fact in prison during the relevant period. 6. The fact, however, remains that the applicant was caught in an impossible position. It would certainly be unwise of him to say that he was in prison for part of the period of unemployment. 7. The matter, therefore, comes squarely within section 54 (1)(f) of the Criminal Procedure ordinance, Cap. 221. We are of the view that though this is a technical error, nevertheless it requires us to say that the conviction is unsafe and unsatisfactory. 8. For this reason the application is allowed and we treat the application as the hearing of the appeal, allow the appeal and quash the conviction. However, in view of the nature of the evidence which was proffered against the applicant in the Court below we think that an order for a re-trial is proper and we so order.
Representation: W.N.C. Stirling (D.L.A.) for Applicant re Conviction LUN Wai Choi - Applicant in person re Sentence I.G. Cross, Snr. Asst. Crown Prosecutor, for Crown/Respondent |