R. v. CHONG KIN SANG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 412

(Criminal)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Mayo J A giving the judgment of the Court:

1. The applicant was convicted on two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs. He seeks leave to appeal against these convictions and the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon him. The total sentence was 18 years' imprisonment.

2. The offences were alleged to have occurred on 28 September 1995. After the applicant had left the flat he occupied he was intercepted by officials of the Customs and Excise Department. The plastic bag he was carrying was searched and found to contain the dangerous drugs referred to in the 1st charge, that is 937.01 Krams of a mixture containing 180.02 Krams of heroin hydrochloride. He was taken back to the flat and the dangerous drugs described in the 3rd count were found namely 2010.42 Krams of a mixture containing 722.25 grams of heroin hydrochloride.

3. The 2nd count charged that the applicant had manufactured dangerous drugs. However he was acquitted on this count.

4. Another defendant was jointly charged with the applicant. This man pleaded guilty to three counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs. He gave evidence against the applicant. The trial judge Gall J gave specific directions to the jury on the dangers of placing reliance upon the testimony of such a witness.

5. The main thrust of the applicant's defence was that he was unaware of the fact that there were dangerous drugs in the plastic bag he was carrying. He also claimed not to know that the dangerous drugs were being kept in the flat he was occupying. He attempted to put the blame on his co-accused. He said that he was taking the bag to someone on his co-accused's instructions. He also said that his co-accused kept the dangerous drugs in the kitchen of the flat and he had been told not to go in there.

6. In a cautioned statement given by the applicant which was admitted as evidence which he made after his arrest he said that he was aware of the fact that there were dangerous drugs in the bag he was carrying. He claimed that when he had made the statement he had been suffering from poor health.

7. In his application to appeal against his conviction the applicant simply states that the trial judge misdirected the jury. He was unable to provide any further particulars before us. He just said that he had not done it.

8. There are no grounds to believe that the convictions were in any way unsafe or unsatisfactory and this application is dismissed.

9. So far as the application for leave to appeal against his sentence is concerned nothing which has been said would indicate that the sentences which were imposed were in any way wrong in principle or manifestly excessive and accordingly the application is dismissed.