R. v. LEE SIU TAK

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 712

(Criminal)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Mayo JA giving the judgment of the Court:

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal out of time against his convictions on two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs. The explanation he offers for being out of time was that at the relevant time he was giving instructions to solicitors to represent him on the appeal he wished to lodge. No particulars are given which indicate that he had given instructions to the solicitors to lodge the appeal within the requisite time limit.

2. No convincing grounds have been advanced to satisfy us that this would be a suitable case to grant leave to proceed out of time. We have of course also considered the merits of any possible application.

3. So far as merits are concerned it was almost devoid of any merit.

4. It was the prosecution case that three police officers observed the applicant coming out of a building in Sai Ching Street, Yuen Long on 29 September 1995 carrying two bags. He approached a car beside which was his wife. The officers went up to the applicant and told him that they had reason to believe that he was in possession of dangerous drugs. He was searched and the dangerous drugs referred to in the first count were found in the bags. The total amount of dangerous drugs found was 718.14 grams of a mixture containing 98.72 grams of heroin hydrochloride. The applicant admitted that it was white powder and said that his wife had nothing to do with it.

5. The officers also found some keys on the applicant's person. The applicant informed the officers that the keys were the keys to a flat in the building he had emerged from. He was taken back there where a further search was conducted. A smaller quantity of suspected dangerous drugs were found in the flat together with scales and equipment suitable for blending dangerous drugs. It was an agreed fact that the applicant's finger prints were lifted from this equipment. At the conclusion of this search the applicant again said that the dangerous drugs had nothing to do with his wife.

6. The case run by the applicant was that no dangerous drugs were found in the bags he was carrying and that he did not make the admission attributed to him. He says that the police produced the keys of the flat in question and insisted that he accompany them to it. After entering the flat he was made to put his hands on the article bearing his finger print impressions.

7. His wife who was his ex-wife at the time of the trial gave similar evidence to him concerning his initial arrest.

8. The trial judge, the Hon Mrs Justice Bokhary gave detailed directions to the jury.

9. The applicant has not lodged any grounds of appeal. Before us he did not put forward any convincing grounds as to why these convictions were not well founded. He did however make vague and unsubstantiated allegations against his counsel.

10. The jury had all the relevant issues before them and there is no reason why their verdict should be interfered with.

11. This application is accordingly dismissed.