Law Chi Hung v. HKSAR

FAMC No. 73 of 2005

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION 

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 73 OF 2005 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACC NO. 341 OF 2004)

_____________________

Between:

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ

Date of Hearing: 16 November 2005

Date of Determination: 16 November 2005

______________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

______________________

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ:

1.The applicant was convicted in the District Court of keeping a divan and of trafficking in dangerous drugs there.  Both of his convictions were affirmed by the Court of Appeal.  He now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against one of those convictions only, namely the one for trafficking in dangerous drugs.  Those dangerous drugs were found in the divan which the applicant had played a guilty part in keeping.  But they were not found there on his person.  They were found there on his co-accused’s person.  What was found on the applicant’s person, however, was $48,930 in cash.  The courts below took that finding of cash into account when arriving at their conclusion that the only reasonable inference was that the applicant, as well as his co-accused who had pleaded guilty, had trafficked in those dangerous drugs.

2.That approach, it is contended on the applicant’s behalf, constituted a substantial and grave injustice to him.  This is because, it is argued on his behalf, there was no sufficient nexus between the finding of the money and the drug trafficking charge. 

3.The law as to what is relevant in proof of a criminal charge is exacting but not to the point of being unrealistic.  Bearing that in mind and looking at all the circumstances, we regard it as plain beyond reasonable argument to the contrary that the courts below were proceeding within the bounds of accepted norms when they concluded that the nexus between the finding of the money and the drug trafficking charge was sufficient to make the finding relevant to the charge.  Leave to appeal is therefore refused.  

Mr Cheng Huan SC and Mr Bernard Chung (instructed by Messrs Haldanes and assigned by the Legal Aid Department) for the applicant

Mr P.S. Chapman and Mr Joseph To (of the Department of Justice) for the respondent