Chow Yiu v. The Queen

CACC000778/1972

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 778 OF 1972

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

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 17th November, 1972.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is a frivolous appeal. The Appellant was charged with unlawful possession of dangerous drugs. A police officer said that he saw the Appellant walking very fast in the street and looking around him: he stopped the Appellant who resisted and refused to be searched: the Appellant was subdued after a struggle and, upon search, he was found to be carrying a packet wrapped in brown paper in his shirt pocket: the officer cautioned the Appellant because he thought it contained dangerous drugs and the Appellant said,

"Sir, give me a chance this time, otherwise I'll be done for."

That seemingly strange observation was due to the fact that, as subsequently discovered, the Appellant had been given a suspended sentence for another offence. The Appellant was then taken, according to this witness, in a motor-car to the Police Station. The packet was sent to the Government Chemist and its contents analysed. The contents were found to be dangerous drugs.

2. The Appellant's story was that he was walking in a different place, that as he was being searched a private car drove up and he was forced into the car: he was then told

"This packet of dangerous drug you bought in Po Tak Street";

he denied that. He says that he was then driven to Po Tak Street. Having apparently made certain inquiries there, the Appellant asserts, the police took him to the Police Station in the motor-car.

3. Before me the Appellant has contended that there were discrepancies in the evidence for the Prosecution. He said that one witness said that he (the Appellant) was taken to the Police Station in a motor-car and another police officer said he was taken on foot. He told me himself that he was taken to the Police Station on foot. The position in truth is that only one police witness gave evidence about his having been taken to the Police Station. That witness gave evidence that he was taken by motor-car and, in the lower court, the Appellant himself said that he was taken in a motor-car. Therefore, not only was there no discrepancy in the Prosecution evidence but he has flatly contradicted himself in his statements to this Court and to the court below.

4. There was evidence which, if believed, justified conviction. The magistrate believed it - and I think correctly believed it - and the appeal is dismissed.

17th November, 1972.

Representation: