The Queen v. Wong Ming

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Magistracy Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 1984

_____

BETWEEN

_____

Coram: Hon. Penlington, J. in Court

Date: 4th May 1984

Date of hearing: 4th May 1984

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

1. This is an appeal against conviction.

2. The appellant, who was unrepresented, has pointed out to me the discrepancies in the evidence given by the Customs Officers who were involved in this operation.  He also points out that the main witness for the prosecution, Miss Chan Fung-wah, who was a member of the Investigation Bureau of the Customs & Excise Department, said that she saw the two defendants, one of whom is the appellant, selling dangerous drugs and that she was at a distance of about 10 ft.  I could well believe that in fact was incorrect and that if she was only 10 ft. away it was highly unlikely that the defendant would be engaged in selling dangerous drugs.   However, I am satisfied that all these discrepancies were clearly and fully brought to the attention of the magistrate by the solicitor who represented the appellant at the trial. The magistrate has been through all the Customs Officers' evidence in considerable detail and was quite satisfied, and I think had every justification for being so satisfied, in finding that the appellant was using the other defendant as an agent to sell dangerous drugs.  In particular she found Miss Chan, who was clearly the main prosecution witness, to be an honest and convincing witness. This was purely a finding of fact and the magistrate was perfectly entitled to come to that finding. The appeal must be therefore dismissed.

3. I am satisfied there was no merit in this appeal and the sentence will run as from today.

Representation:

Mr. Christopher Harris, Counsel for the Crown/Respondent

Appellant in person