Tang Wood-yau v. The Queen
|
CACC001116/1979 Possession of apparatus fit and intended for injection of dangerous drug - police officer "heard something being thrown out" of a window - noise of breaking glass - no broken glass found - insufficient evidence of possession of plastic syringes found outside.
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J.A. Date of Judgment: 11 December 1979 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The Appellant was convicted of possession of apparatus fit and intended for the injection of a dangerous drug. 2. A police officer saw two men walking in the street. They behaved in a manner which aroused his suspicions and the officer followed the two men into a restaurant. He eventually tracked them to the toilet, where they had locked themselves in. There was a ladies' toilet adjoining. The officer went, as I understand it, into that: the record says that he was "at" the ladies' toilet. The difficulty in this case arises from the nature of the record. If it is a verbatim record then there is clearly no evidence to justify the conviction. Magistrates are not required to keep a verbatim record and sometimes the records which a magistrate is able to keep are not perfect. In this instance we are left with many questions. The main witness said that from his place in the ladies' toilet he "heard something being thrown out from the male toilet into the courtyard". He heard the noise of breaking glass. After summoning assistance, he waited for the Appellant and his colleague to come out of the men's toilet. He said that they were then taken down to the courtyard where two syringes were recovered, along with two needles and a needle container. The reason they went was to find out what caused the sound of breaking glass. We are still in doubt as to what was the cause of the sound of breaking glass for there is no evidence that there was broken glass in the courtyard; there is no evidence that the toilet window was broken, even less as to who broke it if it was; and the syringes were made of plastic. Yet this officer said he heard something being thrown out from the toilet into the courtyard. He did not explain what that sound was like and, with respect, it seems on the face of the record, that he was putting two and two together and making ten. It may be that the Appellant did throw these syringes out of the toilet window, but in my judgment there was no evidence to prove that he did. There no doubt were grounds for suspicion, but it must also be mentioned that syringes were found in the cistern of both the men's toilet and the ladies' toilet. The magistrate very properly found that the Appellant was not in possession or connected with those syringes. I agree with counsel for the Crown that on the record as it stands there was no evidence to put the Appellant upon his defence. The appeal must be allowed, the conviction quashed and the sentence set aside. 11th December 1979. |