Chiu Chi Kwan and Another v. The Queen
|
CACC000693/1972 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 693 OF 1972 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins J. Date of Judgment: 13th November, 1972. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The two Appellants were jointly charged with possession of a dangerous drug for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. Both were convicted after a trial and both sentenced to two years' imprisonment. The 1st Appellant appeals against his conviction on the ground that there was no evidence or no sufficient evidence whereon to found the conviction, and the 2nd Appellant appeals against sentence. 2. The police carried out a raid on a room in Shek Kip Mei Resettlement Estate. Three of the officers involved gave evidence. The first said that he entered the room and saw both Appellants sitting on a bed: the 1st Appellant had nothing in his hands but the second was holding a small square piece of brown wrapping paper: on the bed were two polythene bags containing what he suspected to be dangerous drugs, together with a small plastic phial and a paper packet of suspected dangerous drugs. These articles, he said, were between the two Appellants. The second police officer told a similar story with the exception that he said the 2nd Appellant had a packet - and not just a piece of paper - in his hand and that the 2nd Appellant threw this packet on to the bed. The third officer corroborated the others in general terms but did not refer to what the 2nd Appellant was holding. There was proper evidence of the analysis of the suspected dangerous drugs. 3. The evidence of the 1st Appellant was that this room belonged to his aunt and that the 2nd Appellant came to visit him, bringing these drugs with him. He contended that he knew nothing about the drugs and that when the police arrived he had just handed to the 2nd Appellant a cup of water. It is perhaps significant that no mention was made of the alleged cup of water during the examination of the police witnesses. In the case of the 1st Appellant the real issue was whether he knew what was on the bed, and on this point he gave highly contradictory answers. 4. The learned magistrate in a very careful judgment went into the evidence in great detail and analysed the contradictions most carefully. In the event he was satisfied that the 1st Appellant knew very well what was on the bed and, that being so, not surprisingly came to the conclusion that he was in joint possession with the 2nd Appellant. Had it been suggested, for example, that the 2nd Appellant had brought these drugs and was in the process of selling to the 1st Appellant the case might have been very different, but nothing of that kind was suggested and I see no reason to differ from the conclusion reached by the learned magistrate. 5. As to the 2nd Appellant, he had been convicted of seven previous offences and had twice been sent to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre, and I see no reason to say that this sentence was other than a perfectly proper sentence. 6. Both appeals are dismissed. 13th November, 1972. Representation: |