HKSAR v. Wong Wang Hing

DCCC 407/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 407 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Verdict

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

1.The 1st defendant of this trial faced two charges of trafficking dangerous drugs, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134. The 2nd defendant was jointly charged with the 1st defendant in charge 2 only. The 2nd defendant pleaded guilty on the first day of trial whilst the 1st defendant pleaded not guilty to trafficking but was prepared to plead to simple possession of the drugs of charge 1. The prosecution refused to accept this plea to charge 1. The 1st defendant pleaded not guilty to charge 2.

The facts

2.The 1st defendant admitted the police found 13.73 grammes of a solid containing 9.78 grammes of ketamine on the defendant and in his vehicle on 9 November 2012.  There was also 0.56 grammes of a powder containing 0.45 grammes of ketamine folded into a $20 banknote. The defendant was intercepted by the police at 2.15 am outside No. 303 Un Chau Street, Cheung Sha Wan.  The drugs were well-hidden by the defendant, some in his underpants and the majority in the cavity under the gear stick which had to be prised open by the police before it was uncovered.  He also had $10,240 cash on him when arrested.  He was later released on bail.  The cash was seized.

3.Five days later, the police approached a vehicle, not the same vehicle driven by the 1st defendant in the 1st charge, and found the 1st defendant in the driver’s seat with the 2nd defendant next to him.  The police approached the driver’s side with warrant cards displayed and asked the 1st defendant to get out of the vehicle.  Instead, the vehicle started to drive away.  The vehicle only stopped after a police officer hit the side window three times with his baton, shattering the window on the third blow.  The police seized a bag containing five bags of ketamine placed between the two front seats.  These five bags contained a total of 56.42 grammes of a solid containing 45.72 grammes of ketamine worth about $6,700.  The 1st defendant had $10,600 cash on him at the time of this arrest.

The issues

4.The 1st defendant admits possession of the drugs found well-hidden in his car and his underpants on 9 November 2012.  He said he possessed them for his consumption and did not intend to traffic any amount of this ketamine.  The issue is can the prosecution prove he possessed this quantity for the purposes of trafficking.  Credibility of witnesses is an issue in this case.

5.The 2nd defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking the drugs of charge 2.  He says the 1st defendant had no knowledge of the bag of drugs found in his car.  The 2nd defendant had brought the drugs with him and they had nothing to do with the 1st defendant.  The 1st defendant denied all knowledge of the existence of this bag of drugs.  The issue is can the prosecution prove otherwise and prove he intended to traffic this ketamine.

The prosecution case

6.Two police officers, PW1 and PW2, gave evidence of the stop and search of the 1st defendant and his vehicle at 2.15 am on 9 November, as well as the subsequent record of interviews not challenged by the 1st defendant.  It was not challenged that PW1 found the defendant sat in the driver’s seat of a Mercedes Benz with the engine running and a male passenger beside him.  PW1 asked the 1st defendant to get out and he searched him but found nothing suspicious.  PW1 then thoroughly searched the vehicle. He prised off the plastic cover of the cavity at the gear stick and found two plastic bags containing ketamine and a $20 dollar note folded up also containing ketamine.  The 1st defendant admitted under caution it was ketamine.  They were Exhibits P1 to 3.

7.Later at the police station, PW1 thoroughly searched the 1st defendant’s person and found another bag of ketamine in his underpants near his groin, Exhibit P4. 

8.Exhibit P14 were photographs of the drugs, car and the hiding place for the drugs in the car.  Photo 11 is particularly clear where the drugs were hidden in the vehicle. 

9.PW2 later took two statements from the 1st defendant, Exhibit P12 and P13.  He explains where he bought the ketamine from two to three days before his arrest.  He bought them from a man he had never met nor can recall or contact now.  He paid $1,500 for the drugs.  He told the police he divided it up in bags to take out with him so he did not have so much if arrested.  He said he only took out what he wanted to consume.  I note there was no ketamine or dangerous drugs found at his home.  The 1st defendant said he bought so much as it was cheaper in bulk. 

10.In Exhibit P13, his second interview, he said he placed a bag in his underpants to avoid it being found by the police.  If the police found it all he might get a heavier punishment so he separated the dangerous drugs.  The evidence of PW1 and 2, the two police officers, was not challenged to any great extent.

11.For charge 2, the prosecution called three police officers and tendered a police photographer for cross‑examination.  All three police officers describe how on 13 November 2012, PW3 approached a white Toyota Estima at the driver’s door and produced his warrant card that was hung around his neck.  The car was parked on Pak Hoi Street near Temple Street.  PW4 was with or next to PW3.  The driver’s window was open halfway and PW3 told the 1st defendant to switch off the engine.  He said he suspected there was dangerous drugs in the vehicle.  The vehicle then driven by the 1st defendant swerved out as if to drive away.  PW3 shouted loudly for the 1st defendant to stop the car but he ignored this order.  PW3 then used his police truncheon to hit the window and it shattered on the third blow; the car then stopped.  Exhibit P33 is a photograph album depicting the scene, the car, the broken glass window and the position of the bag of the dangerous drugs put between the driver’s seat and the passenger seat.  The drugs were Exhibit P17, 16 and 31.  P18 was three empty transparent bags placed in the same bag as the dangerous drugs. 

12.Both defendants then alighted from the vehicle and were put under police control and taken to the pavement.  PW5 searched the vehicle and seized the bag containing five bags of ketamine.  Under caution, the 1st defendant said to PW3 that he knew nothing, he was only driving him.  The “him” referred to the 2nd defendant.  PW3 also searched the 1st defendant and found $10,600 cash and two mobile phones on him.  Again, a home search later found no dangerous drugs. 

13.A video record of interview was taken by PW3 later that evening and not challenged by the 1st defendant.  This was exhibited as P29 and played in court during the course of the trial.  In this interview, the 1st defendant told the police he and the 2nd defendant had just had dinner and got into his white vehicle for a chat.  The 1st defendant said he had not ever seen the yellow plastic bag containing the dangerous drugs by the side of his seat, nor did he know what was in it when shown it during the interview. He also told the police that he owned the Toyota vehicle and was the registered owner, he drove it for fun during the holidays.  He explained that he had withdrawn $10,600 from an ATM machine to spend it having fun.  He could not recall where the ATM machine was located.  He could not recall the name of the restaurant or the name of the street where he had just had dinner with the 2nd defendant.

14.The evidence of the three police officers was not challenged on any material point.

15.Admitted facts were produced as P36 and dealt with mainly the chain of evidence relating to the ketamine seized and the value of the drugs. 

16.The prosecution produced two certificates issued by the Transport Department which show the registered owner of the Toyota Estima manufactured in 2003 and the Mercedes Benz CLK 240 Avantgarde also manufactured in 2003 was the 1st defendant.  He was arrested by the police when stopped in the driver’s seat of these two vehicles on two separate occasions five days apart.  The certificates are Exhibit P35 and P37.

The defence case

17.The 1st defendant elected to give evidence and called the 2nd defendant as a witness.  The 1st defendant was 31 years old at the material time and working full-time for $500 per day five days a week.  He had left school at the age of 15 and said he was basically illiterate.  He worked in the construction industry for his brother.  He was single and lived with his parents and his 28 year old girlfriend.  She is a beautician and they all lived at Sau Mau Ping Estate.  They are still together, a couple.

18.I was told he had three previous criminal records for possession of dangerous drugs.  In 2007, he was fined and in 2010 he was twice sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment.  I note he has no previous convictions for trafficking dangerous drugs. 

19.In-chief, the 1st defendant admitted all the drugs in the vehicle on 9 November and his underpants belonged to him for self-consumption.  Just before the police approached, he was actually taking or inhaling ketamine and stuffed a bag of ketamine in his underpants because he did not have time to put it away under the gear stick.  He did not intend to sell any of it, he had bought the quantity in bulk as it was cheaper.  The vehicle was in his name but he said his girlfriend was the actual owner.  When asked why it was in his name, he said she did not have enough money for its licence fee and insurance, then said it was cheaper to put it in his name as she had had her licence for less than 3 years.  In examination-in-chief, he reiterated that the interviews P12 and P13 were truthful and accurate records, the answers came from him.  He could not recall where the $10,000 cash found in his possession came from. 

20.In examination-in-chief where the second charge is concerned, he admits he was driving the Toyota when the police approached but he did not see the officer at the window nor see him display a warrant card nor hear him speak.  He had actually started to drive away to take the 2nd defendant to dinner elsewhere when he saw a hand pat the side window.  He then saw something hard hit the window and it shattered.  He then stopped his vehicle.  He until then did not know of nor had seen the yellow plastic bag containing the dangerous drugs in his vehicle. 

21.He admits he made a voluntary video record of interview after his arrest but in evidence wished to clarify what he had said under caution.  He did tell the police that he was driving the 2nd defendant around but in fact he meant he was driving the 2nd defendant to dinner.  The rest of his answers were accurate and truthful.

22.The 2nd defendant gave evidence as a defence witness and said he did not commit the 2nd offence with the 1st defendant.  The 1st defendant did not know he had a bag of dangerous drugs with him when he boarded his vehicle.  The 1st defendant had picked up the 2nd defendant in Mong Kok at about 8 pm to go to dinner together as arranged.  The 2nd defendant was carrying the yellow plastic bag of ketamine and had just consumed some himself.  Besides the yellow plastic bag, he had a rucksack which he placed on his lap.  The yellow bag he put between the two front seats but the opening of the bag was folded down so the contents were not visible. 

23.When the 1st defendant drove to and parked on Pak Hoi Street, they could see that all the cooked food stalls were fully occupied, they then decided to drive away to eat elsewhere.  The 1st defendant drove off a short distance when a man holding something black hit the driver’s side window.  The 2nd defendant said the 1st defendant then stopped the car and someone hit the window causing the glass to break.  After this happened, the 2nd defendant found out that that man was in fact a police officer and he saw him get out his warrant card as well as declare his identity.  The 2nd defendant then got out of the vehicle.

24.The 2nd defendant explained that he had bought this quantity of ketamine from a man in a park in Mong Kok for $2,000-odd.  He bought it for his own consumption and to sell part of it to friends if they called him.  If they wanted ketamine, he would sell part of it to them.  He told the police in his record of interview that he had bought the ketamine three to five days before his arrest.  He had since then carried it all around with him in a plastic bag for when he wanted to consume it and in case he could sell some of it. 

The law

25.The prosecution has a duty to prove reasonable doubt the 1st defendant possessed the dangerous drugs and possessed the dangerous drugs for the purposes of trafficking the dangerous drugs.  For charge 2, the prosecution allege it was a joint enterprise between the 1st and 2nd defendant.  The 1st defendant does not have anything to prove.  The prosecution must first prove the defendant had actual or constructive possession of the drugs.  Constructive possession means where the drugs are not on the defendant’s person but he could and intended to obtain the drugs when required. The prosecution does not have to prove this for charge 1, it is admitted by the 1st defendant.  However, for charge 2, the 1st defendant does not admit possession. 

26.Once possession of proved, the prosecution must prove again beyond reasonable doubt, the 1st defendant trafficked in the drugs, he had possession for the purpose of trafficking.  If there is no admission or direct proof of this, the prosecution must prove the only reasonable inference on the facts before the case to be drawn in the circumstances is that he possessed the drug for that purpose.  Did he intend and have the ability to use all or part of the drugs for trafficking purposes?  I did refer myself to the authority of HKSAR v Chan Hong [1998] 2 HKC 688 at page 690, paragraph 10.

27.The relevant facts will depend on the circumstances in which the defendant had possession of the ketamine, if found in possession.  Where was he, what was the quantity of the drugs, what time of the night or day was it, how were the drugs packaged, all these are relevant for consideration.  The defendant’s intention, purpose or objective of carrying the drugs is also equally relevant.  I repeat, the prosecution allege that on the evidence before the court, the only inference to be drawn is that the 1st defendant possessed the ketamine for the purposes of trafficking.  It is well established that an inference of guilt can only be drawn against a defendant if it is the only reasonable and compelling inference to be drawn.  The defendant faces two charges.  Each charge must be considered separately, the charges do not fall or stand together. 

My findings

28.I considered the submissions made by both counsel for the prosecution and the defence.  I considered the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and the defence witnesses. 

Charge 1

29.I found there to be discrepancies in the defendant’s evidence he gave in court and his record of interviews.  He said in his statement that he bought the drugs day before and he took the whole amount out with him to snort or inhale when he desired.  He put a bag of it in his underpants to avoid detection if the police stopped him, meaning he wanted to minimise the amount the police may find.  In his oral evidence, he said he was taking drugs just before the police arrived at his vehicle so he did not have time to put the bag of ketamine back under the gear stick so put it in his underpants.  Oddly, he said he was using the $20 note found in the gearbox to snort or inhale the ketamine.  He had time to fold that back up and put it in the gearbox cavity, close the panel securely but not enough time to put the bag of ketamine in there at the same time.  I disbelieved this part of his evidence.

30.He gave evidence he had at that time of night, 2 am, over 14 grammes of drugs in his vehicle because he intended to snort it himself, yet he agreed to a question put to him in cross-examination that he had far more ketamine on him than he could possibly snort in one day.  I questioned why he would take the risk of carrying so much ketamine out.  When pressed further in cross-examination, he said he had just bought the ketamine that night to try and explain why he had so much with him there and then.  This directly contradicted what he told the police in Exhibits P12 and P13.  When this was pointed out to him, he said he forgot what he said and when he said it to the police.  He said maybe he was not clear-headed at that time.  I am sure he was in fact hiding the truth.

31.He also gave evidence of his own consumption of ketamine.  He said he took one packet of ketamine at a time but he could not say how big or what amount was in a packet.  He said he would inhale ketamine until he finished what he had in his possession.  He could not answer how much ketamine he took or how much his habit cost him on a day or in a week. 

32.I referred myself to the authority of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1, in particular paragraph 64. In that authority, a Professor K Lee gave expert evidence of the habits of ketamine addicts.  He said, and I quote:-

“Experienced users who have developed tolerance can use up to a gramme or more of ketamine during the course of a single evening.”

It seems if the defendant possessed over 13 grammes for his own consumption, it would last him many days if his habit was daily. If that was the case, I ask again why would he risk carrying so much in his car and on his person? He obviously worried about the risk because he told the police that he had hidden a packet of ketamine in his underpants to separate it from the other bags. The 1st defendant may very well have been a user of ketamine, after all he does have three previous convictions for possession of dangerous drugs. Some of the ketamine may very well have been for his own consumption and in fact the packaging and hiding places of the ketamine may support that. There are two hiding places and a small amount of ketamine was folded into a $20 note. I doubt he would sell ketamine in a $20 note. However, as a previous offender who has served a term of imprisonment, I am sure if he was only taking drugs out for the night for his own use, he would be careful and mindful to only take out what he needed in case of detection or arrest.

33.A drug addict’s habits, the cost of a drug habit and the ability to pay for a drug habit is very relevant to such a defence. The 1st defendant could not give straight answers to these questions, leaving me to doubt his evidence.

34.He was questioned why he had $10,000 cash on him on 9 November and he answered it was not a lot of money.  When asked again, he said he had forgotten and he did not know.  The prosecution put to him it proceeds of trafficking drugs, which he denied.  The fact is, he was arrested five days later with a similar amount of cash on him and for that amount he said he had withdrawn it from an ATM to have fun.  That is over $20,000 cash over the course of five days found in his possession.  He makes no tangible explanation as to the origin of the moneys nor is he earning so much that that amount is insignificant to him.  He would not earn that amount over the course of a month.

35.Whilst referring to his income of $500 a day when he works, prosecution rightly questioned his ability to afford to buy, own, run, keep and service two vehicles and one an expensive Mercedes Benz. The 1st defendant gives some explanation as to why the Mercedes Benz is in his name but with hesitation and discrepancy.  When asked, he said he paid $80,000 for this vehicle and then corrected himself and said his girlfriend paid for it.  He could not explain why the Toyota, he says belongs to his elder brother, was registered in his name.  His explanations were bare assertions and I find an attempt to distance himself from two assets he should barely be able to afford on his own evidence if it was true.

36.In summary, there is no challenge he had two bags of ketamine hidden in his vehicle but one contained over 5 grammes of a solid, a $20 note with ketamine folded in it and a bag in his underpants containing over 6.80 grammes of a solid.  There is no challenge it was 2 am and in Cheung Sha Wan where he was arrested far from his home in Sau Mau Ping. There is no challenge he had over $10,000 cash on him and two mobile phones. It was not the 1st defendant’s evidence that he was taking the drugs home after a purchase.

37.To be in possession of a large quantity of drugs in the street is not enough to prove trafficking, there must be more.  I referred myself to the authority of HKSAR v Ho Ka Kei CACC378/2009. Like here, that case was not one of those cases where the quantity of itself provides a clear indication of a trafficking purpose.  However, from the evidence I find there is more here. 

38.The 1st defendant’s evidence of possession for self consumption is incredible and tenuous.  It is contradictory and evasive. I had great difficulty believing his convoluted evidence.  I do not accept he would take out this quantity of dangerous drugs for his own consumption and fun.  There is no evidence that points to the drugs being all for self consumption but on the other hand, there is sufficient evidence to the contrary, sufficient to allow me to draw the only reasonable inference.  Having rejected the defendant’s evidence, I am sure that no reasonable man could fail to draw such an inference from the facts.  

Charge 2

39.I considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the account of the approach to the 1st defendant’s vehicle by PW3 and PW4.  I am sure they clearly displayed their warrant cards and spoke to the 1st defendant through a half-opened window.  It was not put to these witnesses they did no such thing and that is why the 1st defendant did not see or hear them when he went to drive away.  I am sure the 1st defendant started to drive off because the police officers approached him and declared their identity.  I am sure he started to drive off after the police told him to switch off the engine because they suspected he had drugs in the vehicle.  PW3’s evidence is that when he did this and said this to the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant’s hand moved to the gear stick from the steering wheel to put the car into gear to drive away.  I am sure this was an attempt to leave the scene.  I believed PW3 and PW4’s evidence.

40.This attempt is not evidence of the 1st defendant’s knowledge or guilt but a factor I can take into account.  The 1st defendant’s evidence he drove off before “someone patted his window with his hand, then something hard”, is to try and convince the court his actions were entirely innocent.  I rejected it.  I am sure it took three blows, as described, before the window shattered and then the car stopped.  This was not challenged.  If the 1st defendant was unaware a police officer had come to his window, his natural instinct would surely have been to stop after the first blow with a hard object. 

41.The 1st defendant’s evidence is that he met the 2nd defendant for dinner only.  They met and drove to park the vehicle to eat.  After parking the vehicle, they realised the hawker stall was full and decided to drive elsewhere.  That was the purpose of their car journey.  The 1st defendant did not see the yellow bag full of drugs put between their seats by the 2nd defendant. 

42.This evidence contradicted what he told the police in Exhibit P29.  He clearly said several times they had had dinner already and when the police saw them back in the vehicle together, the 2nd defendant had only got in to chat.  Despite this, he could not tell the police where they only just eaten, not the name of the restaurant nor the street. This makes me doubt the veracity of his evidence.

43.When this discrepancy was put to him, his explanation was that he gave the police the wrong answer.  Under caution at the scene, he said “I know nothing, I just drove him”.  In oral evidence he said that this record of interview, P29, was all the truth except for this admission.  In court, he said he wanted to clarify this answer and I quote, “I think I said I was driving around, in fact I was driving him around to dinner”.  The anomaly here is that if this is the truth then parts of his statement must be in doubt, such as they had already eaten and were only in the car to chat, another contradiction that leads me to doubt the defendant’s credibility.

44.I have already referred to the $10,600 found on the 1st defendant which he said he withdrew from an ATM a couple of days before his second arrest.  In his statement, he could not tell the police which bank branch ATM machine he withdrew this sizeable amount of cash from.  In his oral evidence he said he did not recall when he withdrew it, from which bank, from which branch and then said he could not recall having $10,600 on him anymore. He was shown the physical Exhibit P21, $10,600 cash, to refresh his memory as asked but he said he was not able to recollect this.  When pressed, he finally agreed that it was found on him.  When further pressed if he had a bank statement that would show an ATM withdrawal of $10,600, he said “No” because he was paid his salary in cash. 

45.His answers made less sense the more he was questioned.  I did not believe his evidence.  His contradictions and evasive answers in evidence led me to reject his evidence. 

46.For the drugs of charge 1, he admitted possession for his own use.  He was then arrested again five days later with even more ketamine found in his vehicle.  This time he denied all knowledge of the dangerous drugs.  I question the coincidence and the apparent bad luck that fell on the 1st defendant. 

47.The 1st defendant called the 2nd defendant to give evidence on his behalf and support his evidence he had no knowledge of the drugs in his vehicle and was not in possession of them at the time of his arrest.  Did I believe the 2nd defendant’s evidence?  No, for the following reasons I rejected his evidence:-

48.He gave evidence that he had bought the drugs for about $2,600 to $2,700 from an unknown man in an unknown park in Mong Kok three to five days prior to his arrest on 13 November.  He said he bought in bulk to get a discount of about $1,500.  He could not explain how he knew he had obtained a discount of about $1,500.  It was an agreed fact the value of the drugs found in the Toyota was about $6,714.  That would make his discount at least $4,000.  That is not credible.

49.He then gave evidence he carried this amount of drugs around with him just in case some of his friends called looking to buy some ketamine.  In addition, he would take some of the drugs for his own consumption.  The 2nd defendant took the drugs from home in Tuen Mun to work in Causeway Bay and back again and on 13 November took the bag to meet the 1st defendant.  His purpose was to try and sell part of the drugs and when asked if he had the telephone numbers of those that bought drugs from him, he said he had lost his telephone along with all his contacts.  He had to wait for them to call him.  If he did get a call, he would leave the 1st defendant to meet the caller.

50.On 13 November, he got into the 1st defendant’s vehicle as arranged to go for dinner.  He had a rucksack but was separately carrying a yellow plastic bag, P17, containing five bags of ketamine weighing over 56 grammes in his hand.  He got in the vehicle holding the yellow plastic bag and placed it between his seat and the driver’s seat and he put his rucksack on his lap.  The 2nd defendant said he put it on the ground between the two seats so no one would see it, so he was aware of the need to hide it but when asked why he carried the yellow plastic bag in the open instead of hiding it in his rucksack, he said he had, prior to meeting the 1st defendant, been to a toilet and had inhaled some ketamine.  He forget to put the yellow bag back into his rucksack. 

51.His evidence is far-fetched.  I doubt anyone would carry 50-odd grammes around openly for days on the off-chance someone would call to buy some.  I doubt he would carry it in a shopping bag without any attempt to hide it properly whilst in the Mong Kok area during rush hour. I doubt the 2nd defendant would place it on the floor rather than put it in his rucksack when he got in the vehicle.  If he was careful as to deliberately roll down the opening of the bag to conceal its contents, he would have more likely put it away properly in a rucksack.

52.I do not believe he got into the 1st defendant’s vehicle to go to dinner and then casually leave 50 grammes of ketamine between the seats without the 1st defendant’s knowledge or sight of the bag. 

53.The 2nd defendant gave evidence to support the 1st defendant’s defence.  He was unconvincing and his evidence unreliable.  I am sure it was concocted to try and prove the 1st defendant had no knowledge.  The question is were the two men jointly trafficking the dangerous drugs in the vehicle?

54.As I have said, I rejected both defendant’s version of events and specifically the 1st defendant’s attempt to show he had no knowledge of the drugs.  The 1st defendant’s weak and contradictory evidence highlights a desperate attempt to distance himself from the dangerous drugs. The 2nd defendant, for whatever reason, was willing to take the blame. However, I find both defendants were in possession of the drugs in the vehicle. 

55.The quantity was significant and not packed for self consumption.  There were only five bags and 3 small empty resealable plastic bags, presumably ready to be used if required.  When the 1st defendant saw the police, he tried to leave, which is a factor I can cumulatively consider to reject his evidence of lack of knowledge.  I find that the quantity of ketamine in this vehicle was to be disposed of to others. 

56.On the evidence before me, I find the only reasonable inference is that both defendants possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking in them.  I find that has been established beyond reasonable doubt. 

57.I add, I did consider all defence submissions and in particular the submission that there was no fingerprints of the 1st defendant found on the exhibits in the vehicle.  This is not fatal to the prosecution’s evidence.  It is neutral evidence that does not assist or prejudice the defendant or the prosecution.

58.It was put to the 1st defendant that he sold dangerous drugs to the 2nd defendant of charge 2 and the male friend in his vehicle on 9 November, charge 1.  That was put to him without any basis or grounds.  However, the prosecution are not limited by such a question.  I consider the evidence proved and the evidence found to be credible to decide if the prosecution can prove the only reasonable inference is the 1st defendant trafficked drugs on both occasions beyond reasonable doubt.

59.Defendant, please stand up.  In conclusion, I was satisfied on the evidence for both charges 1 and 2 that the prosecution succeeded to prove possession of the dangerous drugs for trafficking purposes by the 1st defendant.  Accordingly, the 1st defendant is convicted as charged after trial of both charges.