CASSIE L WILLETT v. R.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1993, No. 701
(Criminal)

___________

__________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Mortimer, J.A.: The applicant was convicted on 17th November 1993 before His Honour Judge Whaley of trafficking in 17.83 kilogrammes of cannabis. He was sentenced to four years imprisonment. He applies for leave to appeal against that conviction.

2. The facts were these. On 21st June 1993, two parcels arrived in Hong Kong from Nigeria by mail. Inside the brown paper wrapping were two suitcases. The suitcases and the parcels were opened during routine examination. Both were found to have concealed compartments in which there were blocks of cannabis amounting to 17.83 kilogrammes. Both parcels were addressed to Kennedy Okocha, care of Cassie L. Willett, Chung King Mansions in Kowloon.

3. Customs officers who had examined the parcels switched all but one block of cannabis in each case for a harmless substitute. The suitcases were then delivered by customs officers pretending to be postmen. At the address, Flat D1 and D2 Chung King Mansions, the applicant opened the door and told the customs officers that he was Kennedy Okocha. He produced his passport in the name of Cassie L. Willett. When he was asked about the name in the passport, he pointed to the address care of Cassie L. Willett, and signed the receipt for the parcels in that name. There was one other black man in the room at the time. Having delivered the parcels, the two customs men left and observed the room. They returned ten minutes later to check the parcels. The other man answered the door. The applicant at that time was sitting on the bed with a blue suitcase. The wrapping paper had been removed and he was twiddling the combination lock. The customs men asked for a signature again, this time for the second parcel. The defendant came and signed for that also.

4. The customs men then went to a sitting room at Chung King Mansions which was on the same floor as the applicant's room. As they were sitting there, the other man from the room came out and threw away brown paper into a rubbish bin. Having arrested the other man, the customs men then returned to the flat. All then went back into the flat, the concealed compartments in the suitcases were broken open and the applicant was shown the contents.

5. At his trial the applicant chose not to give evidence. The issue for the judge was whether the applicant himself was the person who was proved to be trafficking in the cannabis in the suitcases. The defence advanced was that the suitcases had nothing to do with the applicant. He was only receiving them, to deal with them on behalf of Okocha, a friend.

6. Having considered the evidence with some care, the judge convicted on the basis that the applicant was indeed the person who had imported and procured the drug.

7. He now seeks leave to appeal on a number of grounds, particularly that he is not Okocha. He rehearsed the defence which he sought to make at trial in a statement which he had made to the police, setting out his version that he had nothing to do with the drugs, but that he was simply receiving them for his friend.

8. He advances a number of other grounds. For example, that the other man who was in the flat, was released and he was deprived therefore of a key witness at his trial. He has also produced before this Court a statement from a man named Oqbonnaya whose statement says that he, among other things, knows Kennedy, apparently referring to the applicant. So it would appear that that witness could not be of any assistance to the applicant had he been called.

9. He takes a number of further points, such as that this was a case of entrapment; that the prosecution had put pressure on him, (i.e. the customs men) by requiring him to take a room for two further nights and had asked him to write his address twenty times on paper, but no evidence relating to that had been advanced.

10. The evidence upon which the judge acted can be summarised in this way: that the applicant said that he was Kennedy Okocha when asked by the customs officer and signed receipts for the parcels in that name; that the brown paper wrapping had been removed from the suitcases; that he was seen twiddling with the combination lock on one of the suitcases; that later one of the combinations on a suitcase had been changed. Also that when the applicant's luggage was searched, a wallet was found containing 15 name-cards in the name of Kennedy Okocha. There was also a cheque for 21,000 Nigerian dollars payable to Kennedy Okocha, a speedpost notice card in the name of Kennedy Okocha, and also a detailed medical report in the same name. The applicant gave the customs officers a telephone number in Nigeria which was said to be related to Kennedy Okocha. The applicant spoke to someone on the other end of that number but after that person had replaced the receiver, the applicant continued to talk as if the person was still connected. He spoke as if receiving information that Kennedy Okocha was due to arrive in Hong Kong on BA27 from London the following Friday. Further, although the name in the applicant's passport is Cassie L. Willett, he claimed that the "L" was an error and that his middle name by coincidence was Kennedy.

11. Finally the applicant had registered in his own hand at the guesthouse where he was staying in the name of Kennedy giving a passport number almost the same as Okocha's, save for the last digit.

12. The judge rejected the whole account given in his cautioned statement. Indeed, it was inherently incredible. The judge had to decide this case on an issue of fact. The evidence and the inferences to be drawn from it of the applicant's guilt in the absence of any evidence from him to the contrary was simply overwhelming. There is nothing advanced by this applicant which can arguably support an appeal against his conviction. The application for leave is refused.