R. v. WONG WING HEI

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 17
(Criminal)

_______________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Yang, C.J.:

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his conviction for trafficking in a dangerous drug on the ground that there was discrepancy in the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.

2. The judge, in his Reasons for Verdict, quite correctly identified the issue in the case as one of fact. The prosecution's evidence was that the drug were found on the applicant's person whilst the applicant said that they were found elsewhere and that he was framed by the police.

3. There was indeed a discrepancy between the evidence given by the prosecution's witness in chief and the evidence he gave whilst he was under cross-examination.

4. In chief he said that he opened the packet of drugs and then asked the accused what it was, but under cross-examination he said:

"Q. Yes, why didn't you, upon finding the drugs on the defendant, arrest and caution the defendant and reminded him of the rights?

A. Well, at that time it was natural for me to ask him what it was until I had found it. At that time it was contained in a black bag and it was sealed.

Q. I see. So you asked him the questions without opening the black packet?

A. As far as I can recall, I should say so. It seems to be so."

5. The judge was of the opinion that this was not a material inconsistency on a fact in issue. Further, he found that the applicant was utterly lacking in credibility.

6. We are of the judgment that the learned trial judge was entirely correct in his approach to the evidence given by the sole prosecution witness. There is nothing in the applicant's ground of appeal which leads us to suspect that the verdict might have been unsafe or unsatisfactory.

7. The application is accordingly dismissed.