R. v. CHAN HO LEUNG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 638
(Criminal)

___________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Ching, J.A. (delivering the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant was convicted on two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs, one count of possession of dangerous drugs, and one count of manufacturing dangerous drugs. The drugs in the first two charges consisted of a mixture of 634 odd grammes containing 460 odd grammes of salts of ester of morphine and a mixture of 335 odd grammes containing 181 odd grammes of salts of esters of morphine. The drugs in the 3rd charge, that of possession, consisted of 6.86 grammes of cannabis. He was given sentences with a degree of overlap and which total 20 years' imprisonment. He applies for leave to appeal against conviction but not against his sentence.

2. On 9th November, 1993, he was stopped by the police at the entrance of Hoi San Mansion, Riviera Gardens in Tsuen Wan. There is a dispute as to what happened and there was a dispute as to what the appellant said and did. Indeed, there were disputes over a multitude of matters. However, it is clear that the applicant was carrying a paper bag and the prosecution evidence was that the drugs the subject matter of the 1st charge were in it. There is no dispute about that, for the applicant gave it in evidence that after he had been stopped the police took the drugs out of the bag in his presence. His evidence was that he had been asked to hold the bag by a female acquaintance who had gone off to buy something. The policemen took the applicant up to a unit on the 6th floor of the building as particularised in the 3rd charge. Again, there is a dispute as to whether it was the home of the applicant or whether he had said that it was. The tenancy agreement was not in his name. One of his fingerprints was found on a domestic appliance but the applicant's case was that he had nothing to do with the flat. He ran kennels and had previously been to the flat to see to a dog which he had sold and in so doing had had to remove some articles from a teapoy. The drugs, the subject of the 2nd and 3rd charges were found in the flat.

3. Inside the flat there was equipment for the manufacture of heroin. Clearly, if the applicant was connected with the flat, the inference would be that he was engaged in manufacture. The question of whether or not the flat was his is not determinative of that issue.

4. All of these matters were put fairly before the jury and the applicable law was clearly explained to them. They returned unanimous verdicts on all four of the charges. In his grounds of appeal and before us today, the applicant asserts that he was not the owner of the flat and did not have its key. These assertions were left to the jury and no criticism has been or could have been levelled at the summing-up. In the circumstances, this application for leave is dismissed.