Lui Kam Hing v. The Queen
|
CACC000728/1972 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 728 OF 1972 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 17th November, 1972. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The Appellant was charged together with another man with possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. There were other charges against the other Defendant but these are not relevant to the present appeal. 2. The police, acting upon information, kept a watch on the Ngau Tam Mei Market. At first nothing suspicious was seen but there were two persons who drew the attention of the police because they appeared to be deep in conversation. After twenty minutes had elapsed the two police officers, who were a Chief Inspector and another officer, went in a motor-car into the centre of the market. When the car arrived these two men who had been deep in conversation suddenly separated. The officers called upon them to stop and one of them was this Appellant. He was searched and in his possession were found a torch, a wallet containing a large amount of money and a notebook. The other man was also intercepted and he had in his hand some tissue paper, which he screwed up and threw away. He was searched and among other things found on him was a notebook. Close to the spot where the two men had been conversing was found a cardboard box. It had a false bottom and inside the box were twenty-two packets which were found to contain dangerous drugs. 3. The significant evidence in the case was that the two notebook contained entries which were identical, and one of the officers, who has long experience in the Police Force and has 2 1/2 years' experience in the Narcotics Branch, gave it as his expert opinion that these entries were consistent with a record of dangerous drugs. It may be arguable that this was not a matter upon which expert evidence was admissible, but the document spoke for itself. There was, however, nothing to connect the entries directly with the drugs found. The Appellant in his evidence denied that the entries related to drugs and gave an explanation which appeared to connect the entries with various types of goods which he said he dealt in, namely apples, mushrooms and shrimps. He was quite unable to give any explanation as to how it came about that the 2nd Defendant had a notebook with identical entries in it. However, he called the 2nd Defendant as a witness. His evidence-in-chief was extremely brief and quite unhelpful to the Appellant, but in cross-examination he admitted that the entries in his notebook did relate to dangerous drugs. 4. Upon that evidence the learned magistrate came to the conclusion that both these men were in possession of the drugs found at the scene, and, in my view, it is inevitable that he should come to that conclusion upon the evidence before him. It certainly cannot be said that his decision is unsupported by any evidence. The presumption under s.46 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance applied and was not rebutted. 5. The appeal must be dismissed. 17th November, 1972. Representation: |