Choi Wai Kwok v. The Queen
|
CACC000713/1968 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 713 OF 1968 -----------------
Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 17 December 1968 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Huggins, J: 1. The appellant was charged with unlawful possession of dangerous drugs. A police officer on duty in the street saw the appellant squatting on the ground and looking around in a suspicious manner. He approached the appellant and seized his left hand, in which there appeared to be something concealed. He opened the hand and inside saw a cigarette-end. In this cigarette-end there had been found traces of dangerous drugs. 2. The case for the appellant was that he never had possession of the cigarette-end at all, that he was a police supervisee and that at 3 o'clock in the morning he was visited by a detective in the course of supervision, that he was taken to the police station and there the cigarette-end was planted on him. 3. The learned magistrate believed the evidence of the police and there was sufficient evidence in those circumstances to support a conviction. Before me the appellant has merely repeated the story which he told to the magistrate - that he was not in possession and that the cigarette-end was planted on him. 4. The only point which did cause me a little anxiety on reading the record was an answer given by the appellant himself to a question by the magistrate. This related to a man whom the appellant alleged had been brought by the police under arrest to the appellant's premises. The answer was: "He was convicted before No.1 Court". If there were any possibility of the appellant's having been convicted because of an association with a proved convict, that of course would be manifestly improper. The appellant himself has told me that he gave this answer in reply to a question whether he was acquainted with the man to whom he had referred. The question was in no way improper and the answer was volunteered by the appellant. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the learned magistrate was in any way affected in his decision by this answer and I see no reason to interfere. The appeal is dismissed. 17th December, 1968. Representation: Appellant in person Mr. Duckett for the Respondent |