Chow Ka Shun v. The Queen
|
CACC000787/1969 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 787 OF 1969
Coram: Rigby S.P.J. Date of Judgment: 20 November 1969 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant, a youth of 16, was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs. He was originally charged together with another boy - and I should here point out that both of them were aged 16 - he was originally charged together with the other boy with possession of these dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking, but that charge was withdrawn and a simple charge of possession was preferred against him and against the other boy. The other boy pleaded guilty to the charge. The appellant pleaded not guilty and it is against his conviction that he now appeals. 2. The facts were perfectly simple and straightforward. The appellant, together with the other boy, were observed by two police officers in the street. Their conduct aroused the suspicions of the police officers and they followed them. This appellant, according to the evidence of the police officers, was seen to take something out of his pocket and give it to the other boy. The boys then apparently observed that they were being followed and the other boy dropped the packet which the appellant had given to him. The packet was picked up by the police officers, who suspected that it contained dangerous drugs, a suspicion which was subsequently confirmed upon analysis by the Government Chemist. The packet, in fact, contained three little red packet wrapped in oil paper and four yellow packets similarly wrapped. Upon analysis three of the packets were found to contain morphine and four barbitone. The appellant categorically denied that he had ever been in possession of the packet and his defence was that the whole story against him was fabricated. The learned magistrate accepted the evidence of the two police officers and convicted the appellant. 3. Quite clearly there was ample evidence, if believed, to support the conviction, and the appeal against conviction is dismissed. 4. Unhappily, it is relevant to observe that the appellant himself, although aged only 16, is a drug addict. The learned magistrate made an order that he be sent to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre; I have no doubt whatsoever that that was the right and proper way to deal with him. Representation: Appellant in person. Evans, C.C. for Crown/Respondent. |