HKSAR v. KHO SIE HOK

CACC 58/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 58 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 210/1999)

__________________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Hon Mayo VP (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant was convicted of trafficking in a dangerous drug after a trial in the High Court before Deputy Judge Longley and a jury. The charge read:

"STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

KHO Sie-hok, on the 8th day of March, 1999 at Shop 64, Second Floor, Fu Lee Loy Mansion, Nos. 9 - 27, King Wah Road, North Point, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely 24.51 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 24.11 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride."

2. Police officers conducted a raid at shop premises which were leased to the applicant. According to the prosecution case the officers secured entry by using a key which they found in the possession of the applicant's lady friend. She had shortly prior to this been stopped by the officers after she had come out of the premises. A search was conducted and the dangerous drugs referred to in the charge were found in a drawer of a desk which the applicant had been sitting at. They also found in the drawer a savings account book in the applicant's name and also in the vicinity a set of scales.

3. The applicant and his lady friend gave evidence at his trial. He claimed to have had no knowledge whatever of the dangerous drugs. He gave particulars of other people who he claimed had access to the shop and the drawers in the desk.

4. In his application for leave the applicant states that he is discontented with his conviction.

5. Before us he claimed that the conviction was unfair. He said that there were irregularities in the trial in that he had concluded a deal with the police that he would admit having the key to the premises if they did not charge his girlfriend. He denied that he had been in possession of the key. He raised several other matters which should have been ventilated at the trial.

6. He appears to misunderstand the function of the Court of Appeal. It does not retry cases.

7. The applicant has not raised any matter which would lead us to believe that his conviction was in any way unsafe or unsatisfactory. The application is dismissed.