The Queen v. Shek Pak Shing

CACC000622/1987

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN

___________

Coram: Hon. Yang, V.-P., Barker, J. A. & Bewley, J, in court

Date of hearing: 20th January 1988

Date of delivery of judgment: 20th January 1988

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Bewley, J.

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against a conviction by Judge Gall in the District Court. The applicant was convicted of possessing 30.8 grammes of a mixture of salts of esters of morphine for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

2. It was the case for the Crown that, on the morning of the 3rd. October last year, two police officers on patrol in Tsui Ping Road Estate saw the defendant coming towards them along a corridor on the 2nd floor. They revealed their identity and the defendant ran away. He was caught and searched and, in a bag at his waist, a number of packages and a plastic bag containing the drugs were found. He was arrested and, when he was asked under caution if the drugs were his, he nodded his head.

3. The applicant gave evidence and said that he left home that morning and went to premises on the ground floor of that block to have breakfast. He then went to the toilet and, when he came out, he saw a man in blue hurrying past. He also heard a commotion from an upper floor. Shortly after the man disappeared, the first officer arrived on the scene and stopped him. He was taken up to the second floor where he was approached by the second officer, who was holding the black waist bag. The applicant denied that the bag was his; he said he had never seen it before and the contents were not his. The police officer told him that he knew, or he ought to have known, the man who was the owner of the bag. He denied it and he was threatened that, if he did not say who the man was, an allegation that the bag belonged to him would be made. That was his evidence.

4. The judge was satisfied that the police officers were telling the truth. This was a simple issue of credibility. There was no possibility of error; either the police officers were telling the truth or they were lying. The judge saw and heard the witnesses. We have heard nothing today that suggests that the judge should not have accepted the police evidence. There was no attempt to rebut the presumption that the drugs were for trafficking purposes. The applicant was properly convicted and the application is refused.

Representation:

Mr R. Davies, Crown Counsel for Respondent

Appellant in person