HKSAR v. Ng Po Lam

CACC000719/1997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1997, No.719
(Criminal)

-------------------------------

Coram: Mayo, Leong and Stuart-Moore, JJ.A.

Date of Hearing: 7 July 1998

Date of Judgment: 7 July 1998

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Stuart-Moore, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 7th November 1997, following a trial in the District Court before Deputy Judge Poon, this Applicant was convicted of two charges. The first was in relation to trafficking in a mixture containing 19.03 grammes of heroin hydrochloride, the second related to his simple possession of a mixture containing 0.81 gramme of heroin hydrochloride. The Applicant was then sentenced to five years and two months' imprisonment. He seeks leave to appeal against his conviction.

2. In his original homemade grounds of appeal, the Applicant complained that:

(1) his counsel did not take long enough to discuss the case with him;

(2) his counsel led him in the wrong way in the witness box;

(3) the police officer who arrested him cautioned him on all occasions before questioning him for the offence of simple possession;

(4) police did not prove for what purposes the drugs were to be used; and

(5) the judge neither considered whether the packaging was for trafficking or self-consumption only, nor the quantity of the drugs involved.

3. It is true that he has also pointed out in writing that he is a drug addict and needs heroin as he explains, rather dramatically, in order to work as a taxi driver. He buys 28 grammes of heroin twice a month from an income of $20,000. Each purchase apparently costs him $4,000. It is cheaper that way. He goes on to explain that he was on his way home on the day of his arrest when he was hailed by a long-distance passenger who wished to go to Tuen Mun. This is how he found himself there with the drugs.

4. The Applicant should understand that the purpose of this hearing is not to re-try his case. All the matters which he raises were clearly examined and taken into account by the trial judge.

5. The Applicant was caught in an anti-drugs surveillance operation conducted by the police. On arrest, he admitted that one packet was for his own consumption. He said the larger packet was to be delivered to someone else. The value of the drugs in the first charge was $13,818.

6. In the simplest of cases, the trial judge went to extraordinary lengths in giving his Reasons for Verdict, extending to over 13 pages, and it is clear that every possible aspect of this Applicant's case was considered with great care and attention to detail. The trial was entirely fair and there is not the slightest merit in this application.

7. Accordingly, we refuse leave and the application is dismissed. We shall order that two months of the time spent awaiting this hearing will not count towards the Applicant's sentence.

Representation:

Mr. Simon Tam, S.G.C. for D.P.P./Respondent

Applicant in person.