R. v. LEUNG KAM CHUEN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No.339
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Bewley, J. : (Giving the judgment of the Court)

1. The applicant was convicted of two charges of trafficking in dangerous drugs by Deputy Judge Sweeney in the District Court.

2. He was intercepted by two police officers as he entered the ground floor lobby of the block of flats where he lived. He was searched and three plastic packets of heroin were found in his jacket pocket. This was a mixture of 55 grammes containing 16.27 grammes of salts of esters of morphine. The applicant was taken to his bedroom on the 7th floor and a plastic bag was found in the pocket of a jacket hanging in the wardrobe. In it were two plastic packets of heroin in lump form : this was 27.78 grammes of a mixture containing 8.32 grammes of salts of esters of morphine. There were also 16 plastic packets containing 11.27 grammes of a mixture containing 4.61 grammes of salts of esters of morphine. There were also 46 plastic straw packets, which contained a mixture weighing 17.22 grammes containing 6.46 grammes of salts of esters of morphine.

3. Inside the wardrobe was a handbag, which was found to contain three plastic cigarette lighters, five iron clips, one brush, one pair of scissors, one bundle of small plastic bags and 15 pieces of straw. There was also an electric blender.

4. The applicant did not dispute that all these drugs and paraphernalia had been in his possession. His only complaint about the police evidence was that the two larger packets of heroin in lump form were not found in the same jacket as the other exhibits. He told the Court that they were in a different blue jacket in the same wardrobe.

5. The applicant's case was that he was an addict and all these drugs were for his own consumption. The large quantity was explained by the fact that he bought 2 ounces of heroin that night, using $5,000 borrowed from his mother, forgetting that he still had two lumps in the blue jacket. He believed he only had 16 small packets and 46 straws, which he said was only 16 days' supply. He could not remember when he purchased the heroin in the blue jacket or how long it had been there.

6. The judge did not believe this evidence. He was satisfied that there was no reason why the police should fabricate this piece of evidence. Taking the large amount and the value of the drugs seized into account, as well as the evidence of a drug packing operation in the applicant's bedroom, he was satisfied that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence was that the applicant possessed these drugs and paraphernalia for the purposes of trafficking or trafficking combined with personal consumption.

7. Today the applicant has raised a number of matters which are largely a repetition of his evidence in the court below. He submits that the judge's calculations were wrong and he should have realised that these drugs were for his own consumption.

8. We are satisfied that the inference drawn by the judge was justified in the circumstances of the case. The conviction is neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory. The application is refused.