THE QUEEN v. SIU HOK-CHI

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Yang, J.A.:

1. As we have decided to order a retrial, we propose to say nothing more than it is absolutely necessary.

2. On the authority of The Queen v. CHAN Tat-wah, Criminal Appeal No. 545 of 1983 of R. v. Howarth (1927) 19 Criminal Appeal Report 102, we are of the view that the evidence adduced by the prosecution as to the police officers' suspicion of the Applicant's involvement should not have been admitted. But for a matter which I shall refer to in a moment, we would have thought that the admission of such hearsay evidence by the learned trial Judge was cured by his warning to himself. However, in his judgment he referred to a series of what he described as coincidences, which in our view are not true coincidences because it seems to us a little difficult to say that this part of the judgment is not related to the hearsay evidence on the police officers' knowledge or suspicion of the Applicant's involvement in drugs. For these reasons, we are of the view that the conviction is unsafe and unsatisfactory. We therefore treat the application as a hearing of the appeal, allow the appeal, quash the conviction and set aside the sentence. Retrial ordered.