R. v. YUEN PING WAI

-------------------

-----------------------

J U D G M E N T

-----------------------

Hon. Yang, CJ:

1. The applicant was convicted after trial in the District Court of one count of possession of a dangerous drug for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. The drug in question was in one bag containing 16 smaller packets with a total weight of 21.53 grammes of salts of esters of morphine. This is his application for leave to appeal against conviction.

2. According to the evidence of two police officers, the applicant was intercepted at the entrance of On Kay Court Commercial Complex. Upon being searched, a white plastic bag was found in his right trousers pocket. He was then arrested and cautioned.

3. According to the first police officer's evidence, the applicant said after caution, "Ah Sir, can you give me a chance. I did not do it at the market." However, according to the evidence of the second police officer, the applicant uttered those words, "Sir, can you give me a chance. I did not do it at the market any longer."

4. The market was on the opposite side of On Kay Court Commercial Complex.

5. The judge, in her Reasons. for Verdict, accepted the two police officers as witnesses of truth. But she did not reconcile the two different versions given by the two different police officers as to what the applicant said after caution. It would appear from the Reasons for Verdict that the learned judge accepted the version given by the first police officer as representing the. truth. We say this because this was the version that was relied on by the judge to convict the applicant on the charge.

6. At the time of his arrest, a sum of $7,489 was found on his person. The applicant in his evidence said that he was not carrying any drugs at the time of his arrest. The judge considered the evidence of the applicant and a witness called by him, and rejected their evidence as not being worthy of credence. The judge in her Reasons for Verdict, it would appear, relies solely on the words uttered by the applicant to convict him.

7. It is argued on appeal, inter alia, that the words uttered by the applicant were so ambiguous that these could not form the basis of a conviction. If there was no evdience other than the evidence of the words uttered, we would be in some doubt as to the correctness of the conviction. However, taking all the circumstances of the arrest of the applicant into consideration, we are faced with a situation where the applicant had on his person over $7,000 and a large quantity of drugs. As the judge had rejected the evidence given by the applicant and his witness, we are faced with a situation whereby the possession of the money and the drug was unexplained. On this basis, we are of the view that there was sufficient evidence upon which to convict. If it is necessary to apply the proviso, we would apply the proviso and say that the judge should have taken into consideration the lack of explanation of the money found on the applicant and of the large quantity of dangerous drugs found on him.

8. For these reasons, we would dismiss the application for leave to appeal against conviction.