R. v. CHEUNG MAN CHING

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 442

(Criminal)

______________

______________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Mayo JA giving the judgment of the Court:

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against her conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs.

2. It was the prosecution case that police officers observed the applicant getting out of a motor car outside 413 Castle Peak Road on 26 October 1995. She was carrying two bags. They intercepted her and searched the contents of the bags. They found what they suspected to be a quantity of dangerous drugs. Their suspicions were well founded as it subsequently transpired that the substance found consisted of 705 grams of a mixture containing 65.96 grams of heroin hydrochloride.

3. The applicant was taken back to the police station and made a cautioned statement to the police. In it she claimed that the contents of the bags belonged to Ah Yee. In a further statement she admitted that she knew that Ah Yee had put into one of the bags "accessory materials" to be used for the purpose of manufacturing dangerous drugs.

4. The main defence run by the applicant at her trial was lack of knowledge of the contents of her bags.

5. Linked to this was a conflict of evidence as to the circumstances immediately preceding the applicant's arrest. According to the prosecution she had emerged from a car. She however claimed that she had just come out of a building.

6. Ground 1 of the perfected grounds of appeal makes complaint that the judge should have assisted the jury in determining which version of the evidence was true. Deputy Judge Wilson, the trial judge, had not done this. He had directed the jury that the important issue in the case was to determine whether the prosecution had succeeded in satisfying them that the applicant had knowledge of being in possession of the dangerous drugs.

7. This was the main issue which was before the jury and it was left squarely for their determination. This ground is without merit.

8. The second ground relates to the witness called to give evidence for the defence. It emerged in evidence that he had convictions for trafficking in dangerous drugs. In his summing-up the judge gave clear directions that the jury should not conclude that simply on account of the fact that someone had been convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs they should also assume that he was a perjurer. It is true that the judge did not summarise his evidence but it was enough in the circumstances of this case to remind the jury, as the judge did, that they must bear that evidence in mind when considering their verdict. There is also no substance to this ground of appeal.

9. All these matters were fairly before the jury. The conviction is in no way unsafe or unsatisfactory and this application must be dismissed.