THE QUEEN v. PANG KWOK HING

BETWEEN:

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

1. The appellant appeals against his conviction for possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. He was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment but does not appeal against that.

2. The evidence is really very simple and largely undisputed. On 17th July, at Castle Peak Road, a police officer intercepted the defendant ("D.1"), searched him and found on his person a polythene bag containing white powder which, on analysis, turned out to be 4.10 grammes of a mixture containing .40 gramme of salts of esters of morphine.

3. D.1 gave evidence before the magistrate, and did not dispute that the white powder was found in his possession. His explanation, however, was that he had purchased it for consumption by himself and a friend ("D.2"), who was discharged when the Crown offered no evidence against him.

4. According to D.1, D.2 had provided him with $110, to which he had added a further $40 of his own to purchase the drugs. In cross-examination, he agreed that he was to have had a share of the drugs but that the rest was to go to D.2.

5. The magistrate appears to have accepted his explanation, and directed his attention correctly to the definition of "trafficking" in section 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. "Trafficking" is there defined as including "procuring, supplying or otherwise dealing in or with a dangerous drug."

6. On his own admission, D.1 intended to supply a portion of these dangerous drugs to D.2. On that basis I cannot interfere with the magistrate's finding that D.1 had the drugs in his possession for the purpose of supplying, that is to say trafficking, in them, and I must therefore dismiss the appeal against conviction.