THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI-WAI

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Power, J. A. :

1. The Applicant CHAN Chi-wai faced a charge that he and a man WONG Chi-leung on 15th December 1987 opposite No. 53 Shing Tak Street, Kowloon, had in their possession a dangerous drug namely 420.63 grammes of a mixture containing 23.14 grammes of salts of esters of morphine, for the purpose of unlawfully trafficking therein. WONG Chi-leung pleaded guilty to that charge but the applicant pleaded not guilty and was convicted after trial in the District Court.

2. The Grounds of Appeal, which he drafted himself, amount to no more than a statement that the trial judge believed the police evidence and not that given by him, which is correct, and to a denial of the offence. They do not as set out advance the matter in any way helpful to the applicant.

3. The evidence against him came from two police officers They stated that they were on the evening in question on duty at a road block when they stopped a private car being driven by WONG Chi-leung in which the applicant was seated in the front passenger seat. The officer stated that when they wanted to search the boot of the car, Wong produced a key and inserted it into the boot and that at this point both Wong and the applicant ran off. They said that both were apprehended and brought back to the car and that, when two plastic bags which were underneath the seat whore the applicant had been sitting were pointed out to him he made admissions that these contained dangerous drugs. On analysis they were shown to contain the dangerous drugs, the subject of the charge.

4. Mr. Hawker sitting as a Deputy Judge was satisfied that the applicant was the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. He stated that having seen and heard the two police witnesses he was impressed by them as being, truthful and, that he found them to be reliable witnesses. He recited their evidence in which they said that when the applicant was apprehended having run away he said that there was of white powder inside the car and that when he was asked, having been brought back to the car where the drugs were, pointed to the two packets on, the floor under the front passenger seat where he had been sitting. There ,were it is true some discrepancies existing between the evidence of the two police witnesses. However, the trial judge was aware of these and said that in his view they were he minor. As to the evidence of the applicant he said that he was sorry to say that he just did not believe the applicant's version of what had taken place

5. He held that because the applicant was the registered owner of the vehicle, a presumption as to possession of the dangerous drugs arose against him under s.47 of the Dangerous Drugs ordinance. He, however, in the outcome, found it not necessary to rely upon that presumption. He stated:

"Your evidence falls far short of rebutting any presumption. on the evidence before the court in this case, however, in my view there is no need for the prosecution to rely upon any. presumption. In my view, the overwhelming inference from the evidence is that this was a joint enterprise between you and the 1st accused."

6. Having been so satisfied he was satisfied that the charge had been proved against the applicant beyond reasonable doubt.

7. Nothing has been raised before this court today that would in any way indicate that this conviction was either unsafe or unsatisfactory and the application for leave to appeal against conviction must therefore be refused.