Lam Chun-min v. The Queen

Case No.CACC 934/1974

Court

Court of Appeal

Date20 Nov 1974

Judge—

Case Document

100%

CACC000934/1974

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 934 OF 1974

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

BETWEEN
	LAM Chun-min	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

Coram: Trainor, J. in Court

Date of Judgment: 20th November, 1974.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant in this case was convicted of possession of an instrument fit for the injection of a dangerous drug contrary to Section 36(1) of The Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. At least that is the conclusion one is led to from reading the findings of the learned trial Magistrate. It is not easy to find this on the record file.

2. The accused was originally charged, as it would appear from the practically illegible copy of the carge that is on the record with smoking a dangerous drug. This charge was amended to one of injecting a dangerous drug. The particulars of the offence are set out in the amended charge, and it is difficult to comment temperately on those particulars. I am not altogether taken by surprise by the particulars as set out because it is not the first time that I have had to read utter nonsense similar to what is contained therein.

The appellant is alleged to have injected and I quote:

	"( i )	2 packets each containing a mixture containing salts of esters of morphine. Total weight of mixture: less than 0.1 of a gramme. Total weight of salts of esters of morphine: less than 0.1 of a gramme;
	( ii )	2 syringe sets, 1 metal tray containing 5 needles and 4 spoons each with a piece of cotton wool, each containing less than 0.1 of a gramme of salts of esters of morphine."

3. Evidence was given on that charge as framed by certain police officers as to how this case came about. Without going into it in detail the relevant portion of the evidence was given by P.C. Chow Yu-cheung who said he saw the appellant holding in his right hand a syringe on an occasion when he and other police officers, acting on information, were endeavouring to round up drug addicts and those supplying them with drugs. He said he saw the defendant throw this syringe into a wooden box and run away. He said that he went to the spot and saw a second syringe and equipment for injecting. He seized these and a quantity of materials including syringe and needle points, all of which were suitable for injecting drugs.

4. It was after this witness had given evidence, according to the notes, that the learned trial Magistrate decided to amend the charge to a charge under Section 36(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, the section that makes it an offence to be in possession of an instrument capable of injecting a dangerous drug. No amendment is noted on the already amended charge.

5. At the close of the prosecution evidence the appellant was afforded the opportunity of making his defence. He elected to remain silent.

6. An examination of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly establishes the accused to have been in possession of the syringe and other articles unless something was introduced to dissipate that evidence. The accused produced nothing.

7. Although there is no charge in the record indicating that the accused was charged under Section 36(1) of Cap.134 there is, however, the Magistrate's note to the effect that the charge was amended and that "the amended charge was read and explained" to the appellant. It would also appear from another note that an opportunity to recall previous witnesses or to seek an adjournment was afforded to the appellant and refused by him.

8. The learned Magistrate clearly believed the witnesses. I dismiss the appeal.

J.P. Trainor, J.

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Haldane, c.c. for Respondent.