THE QUEEN v. WAN KWONG MING

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Silke, V.P.:

1. The Applicant, Wan Kwon Ming, was convicted after trial before His Honour Judge Corcoran in the District Court of two offences The first: possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking; the second: assaulting, a police officer in due execution of his duty.

2. On 9th October 1987 a police party was on ordinary patrol in the Tung Tau Estate at about 6:20 a.m. It was the evidence of members of that patrol that they say the Applicant and a person, whom it later transpired was Mr. Ng Shing Fai, DW1 at trial, walking together. They went up to the two, revealed their identities. The Applicant was seen to hold a black plastic bag which he attempted to conceal behind his back. The friend ran away and was chased by PW3, DPC13279.

3. The Applicant himself attempted to run away hut was detained by the Detective Sergeant 13358 who was PW2 at trial. There was a struggle, in the course of which, the black bag was thrown away by the Applicant. The struggle continued and the Applicant caught the sergeant by his private parts. This caused the sergeant considerable discomfort and he struck the Applicant in order to effect his release. Two other police officers arrived and assisted in the subduing of the Applicant. The bag was then examined and in it was found seven newspaper wrapped packages. Six of them contained smaller packages of five each and one of them contained two smaller packages. The Applicant was arrested and taken to police station with, we understand, his friend. The friend was subsequently released without charge and as we have said gave evidence on behalf of the Applicant at the trial.

4. In his grounds of appeal, the Applicant first takes issue with that which he says is an inconsistency between the two police officers who approached him. One the sergeant saying he saw the hag, the other the constable saying that he did not. This matter was raised at the trial. An explanation was given by the constable that he was the person who was concentrating on the friend.

5. The effect of this suggestion, for the Applicant did not give evidences was to the effect that the police were framing him.

6. One of the police officers who came upon the scene and assisted the sergeant in the subduing of the Applicant was In another building at the time of the first apprehension; of the Applicant. He made reference to his taking about 30 seconds to come to the place where the Applicant and the sergeant were struggling. This was in evidence at trial. We had the benefit of the full transcript which we have read and it was not a matter upon which any emphasis was placed. The Applicant was legally represented.

7. An issue as to whether or not the bag was opened after the arrest was fully canvassed at trial. The Applicant says that he was not shown the discovered articles at the scene. The recording of what did happen in the police constables' notebook was a somewhat truncated one and it is correct that there was no reference to it in his statement. As we have said, the matter was canvassed and it was entirely for the trial judge to assess the credibility of the witnesses.

8. While the Applicant alleges that there was no sealing of the exhibits in the police station where he was brought after his arrest, there was clear and uncontested evidence that this in fact had been done.

9. It is correct that Mr. Ng Shing Fai, who was the friend at the time of the apprehension, gave evidence to the effect that he and the Applicant were not together; that they had been greeting each other from some distance apart; that neither he nor the Applicant were in fact carrying any object and that they were both suddenly attacked out of the blue for no reason whatsoever.

10. Again, the trial judge saw and heard this witness. He was aware that the issues here depended on credibility of the witnesses. He did not consider Mr. Ng to be a witness to the truth.

11. In respect of the assault charge, the Applicant suggested that it was he who was the one assaulted and not the other way round. It was true he was injured. It was equally true the sergeant was injured. For the sergeant, hospital treatment was necessary. The injuries in both cases were minor.

12. All the matters which have been raised in the grounds of appeal were matters raised and considered at trial. The trial judge in his careful assessment of the witnesses came to the conclusion that each of the prosecution witnesses was "generally truthful" Having considered the evidence and the nature of the witnesses who gave it, he was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offences had been proved. As I have said, we have had the benefit of seeing the transcript. There is nothing in the transcript and nothing in the points raised by the Applicant which gives us any, cause to doubt the correctness of that finding. The application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.