HKSAR v. Irfan Siddique

HCMA 447/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 447 OF 2010

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 1275/2010)

____________

BETWEEN

____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Chan in Court

Date of Hearing: 25 June 2010, 13 July 2010.

Date of Judgment: 13 July 2010.

Date of Reasons for Judgment: 10 August 2010

______________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

______________________________

1.The Appellant was convicted after trial of one count of possession of a dangerous drug. He was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment. He now appeals his conviction.

Prosecution Case

2.The Appellant was stopped by police officer at Lockhart Road, Wan Chai. Three packets of cannabis resin were seized from his trousers pocket. During an interview, the Appellant admitted the resin was for his own consumption.

Defence Case

3.The Appellant and his friend were stopped outside Wan Chai MTR Station by the police. He was then pushed into a police car and told to admit. Back at police station, something was put into a plastic bag and he was again told to admit the ownership of the substance.

Grounds of Appeal

4.In his homemade grounds, the Appellant alleges that:

(i) CCTV recordings outside MTR station should have captured him and his friend being stopped by the police;

(ii) the Learned Magistrate refused to admit telephone conversations, which clearly show inducement on the part of police to lure him into admitting the possession of the drug.

Discussion

5.The Appellant did not mention any CCTV recordings during trial. These CCTV recordings, if they exist, amount to fresh evidence. There are strict limitations regarding the admission of new evidence. Not only the Appellant fails to advance any reasons why they were not produced during trial, no attempts have in fact been made by the Appellant to obtain those CCTV recordings. His first ground therefore fails.

6.The Appellant further claims that in the course of the trial, the Learned Magistrate refused to admit telephone conversations,which demonstrate impropriety on the part of the Police, namely he was promised that he would only be fined.

7.As a result of that allegation, the case was adjourned and transcripts had since been obtained. I have read all the transcripts and there is absolutely no substance in this allegation. The second ground also fails.

8.In conclusion, the Appellant’s application to appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Miss Lily Ho, SPP, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent.

The Appellant in person.