R. v. CHAN MAN SUM

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 334
(Criminal)

-----------------------

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant seeks leave to apply against his conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs.

2. Two police officers who were performing anti-narcotic duties in the early hours of the morning of 10 October 1995 observed the applicant acting in what they regarded as being a suspicious manner.

3. They followed him into a restaurant and saw him enter the female toilet. When he emerged from it they stopped him and searched him. They found 140 packets which they suspected contained dangerous drugs. The applicant informed them that this was so.

4. On analysis by the Government Chemist it transpired that the quantity of the mixture found on the applicant was 51.94 grams of a substance containing 16.15 grams of heroin hydrochloride.

5. The applicant did not give evidence at his trial or call any witness.

6. In his grounds of appeal he puts forward five general reasons why he suggested he should not have been convicted.

7. He alleged that the dangerous drugs had been planted on him. He did not however give evidence to this effect at his trial.

8. We can see no reason to interfere with this conviction. The application is dismissed.