THE QUEEN v. PANG SIU CHUNG

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Hon. Yang, C.J.:

1. The applicant was convicted by Judge Yeung on a charge of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. This is his application for leave to appeal against conviction.

2. The two main prosecution witnesses were PW1 and PW2, police officers who carried out the raid on the 2nd December 1988 at No. 3 Temple Street, 3/F. Whilst the police party was inside the premises, the applicant came in carrying a jacket. Upon search the police found in the lower right pocket of the jacket a plastic container inside which was found six transparent plactic bags of suspected dangerous drugs. On being cautioned the applicant said that the white powder was for his own consumption.

3. The defence adopted at the trial was that the dangerous drugs were planted on the applicant after he had been taken from the street to the staircase of the premises.

4. The applicant elected not to give evidence or to call any witnesses.

5. In his homemade grounds of appeal, the applicant complains that he does not know how his legal aid counsel presented his case, that he does not know English and that the interpreter did not interpret the case clearly to him, that he was not given a chance to speak and he had no idea how the hearing had proceeded.

6. The applicant contends before us that the prosecution witnesses had given false evidence, and by accepting the false evidence the judge had made a wrong decision. He further argues that there must have been many occupants at the premises in question who could have come to court to testify that dangerous drugs were found in his jacket, and since none were called, the conclusion must be that the police was unwilling to have these occupants called to tell the truth in court. He further suggests that he did not realise that he had a right to give evidence or to call witnesses.

7. The two prosecution witnesses were cross-examined to the effect that dangerous drugs had been planted upon the applicant. However, their evidence was not shaken. The applicant was given the opportunity to give evidence or to call witnesses but it was his own choice that he wanted to do neither. There was ample evidence before the trial judge for him to conclude that the applicant was in possession of the quantity of dangerous drugs mentioned in the charge. Nothing that he has said to us occasions any doubt in our mind that the verdict is correct.

8. The application is therefore refused.