Chan So v. The Queen
|
CACC000633/1972 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 633 OF 1972 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 31st October, 1972. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The Appellant was charged before the magistrate with possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. When he pleaded he said the white powder was his but that he was not selling it. 2. The evidence called for the Crown was very brief: a police officer saw this man in the street: he appeared to be startled at seeing the police officer and therefore the officer went up to him and searched him: in the Appellant's pocket he found a packet which he suspected to contain drugs: as the officer was opening a second packet the Appellant started to run away: the constable eventually caught him and, after a struggle, overpowered him: the Appellant was arrested. There was then evidence that the drugs were taken to the Government Chemist and a certificate was produced at the trial showing that the packet contained 6.8 grammes of a mixture containing 3.2 grammes of salts of esters of morphine and that the smaller packet contained a small quantity of barbitone. The certificate which was before the learned magistrate had inadvertently been submitted without signature. This was not noted at the time by the prosecutor, by the Appellant or by the magistrate. The magistrate noticed the omission when he was writing his findings and he has very properly drawn the attention of this Court to the omission. It is readily understandable that he had been concerned to ensure that the results of the chemist's analysis justified the charge. No point was taken wither below or in this Court by the Appellant on the omission and it was clearly a slip. This seemed to me one of those rare cases where it was proper to allow the Prosecution to adduce further evidence on the hearing of the appeal. The Government chemist was present to be questioned by the Appellant if he so wished, but the Appellant was content that a new certificate should be accepted. 3. The Appellant's defence took the form of an unsworn statement from the dock. In that statement the Appellant said that he was in a gambling house at the time of his arrest, that the constable threw his arms round him from behind and dragged him out and that he had no idea why he had been picked on, because he had no drugs on him. Before me the Appellant said that he was arrested in the street. 4. The learned magistrate considered the evidence and was satisfied that the constable was telling the truth. Nothing that I have heard leads me to believe that he came to the wrong decision. On the contrary, what I have heard from the Appellant convinces me that he came to the right decision. 5. This appeal is dismissed. 31st October, 1972. Representation: |