Ng Yim Kwan v. The Queen
|
CACC000899/1980
Coram: Liu, J. Date of Judgment: 27 November 1980 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. On the 12th August this year in a room on the 1st floor of Yin Hing Building in Choi Hung Road, San Po Kong twelve packets of suspected herein were found. It was not disputed and in fact established at the trial that the suspected herein were in twelve packets, in all 4.29 grammes of mixture containing 1.19 grammes of salts of esters of morphins. Among others taken from the appellant, a key opened the door to the room in which the twelve packets of herein were retrieved. Prior to the opening of the room door, the appellant had orally admitted to the inspector that he was the sole occupant. In fact he was not. His wife was using the room from time to time, and his friend "fat boy" lived there and occasionally took his girl friend to the come room. 2. On the discovery of the twelve packets, after caution the appellant said to the police officer that he was keeping the heroin for his own consumption. During cross-examination it was put by his solicitor that although he wrote a statement for the police he did not in fact sign it. It was argued on his behalf that the oral admission of ownership allegedly made by the appellant to the police must be visard with circumspection and not inconsiderable suspicion. 3. If indeed the appellant was in possession of the twelve packets, the retrieved quantity both in number and in weight was sufficient to raise statutory presumptions against the appellant that the same was being possessed for the purposes of trafficking therein. 4. The appellant's statement allegedly given to the police was received evidently only for testing credibility of witnesses and reliability of their evidence on the appellant's alleged earlier oral admission to the effect that he kept the twelve packets for self consumption. 5. On such earlier oral admission given to the police, the learned magistrate relied as evidence showing possession. Having as found possession, the learned magistrate proceeded to invoke the presumptions of trafficking against the appellant both by reason of the number of the packets and in weight. Presumptions of unlawful trafficking in these drugs were found by the learned magistrate not to have been rebutted. 6. Before the learned magistrate, the defence was that at no time the appellant made any oral admission to the police and that in fact he was not in possession of any of the twelve packets. 7. Conviction of the appellant on the charge was, in my view, well founded. 8. Conducting his own appeal, the appellant has adopted a completely different stance. He told the court that he purchased there twelve packets and others for his own consumption. He explained the reasons for the bulk purchase, both in weight and in number. There allegations were not placed before the learned magistrate by reason of his then defence. His then denial of possession removed virtually all credibility in the explanation offered in his oral admission for possession. The magistrate was justified in finding evidence of possession in his oral admission but rejecting the than disowned explanation in the same admission for rebutting the statutory presumptions of trafficking raised by the quantity seized. 9. This appeal has no conceivable merits. I need not invite Mr. Longley to render any assistance to the court. In this unmeritorious appeal. I feel duty-bound to order the sentence to run from today: appeal against conviction be dismissed.
Representation: |