THE QUEEN v. LI WING HO

__________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Silke, V.P.:

1. The Applicant, Li Wing Ho, was convicted after trial before His Honour Judge Call of two offences of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. On each of those counts he was sentenced to a period of 3 years' imprisonment, running conourently, giving a totality of 3 years. He now seeks leave to appeal against those convictions and makes no application in respect of the sentence.

2. It was the case for the prosecution, and the Applicant had admitted from the outset possession of the drugs found, that the Applicant had been seen outside the Sir Robert Flack Health Centre in San Po Kong. He was observed by the police. A man was seen to approach him. He was paid some money by that man and in turn the Applicant handed the man a white packet. The police followed the Applicant. They saw him squat down and take a packet from his trousers leg and drop it on the ground. At that point the Applicant was arreted.

3. He was searched. The packet on the ground and further packets found in his shirt pocket, as we understand the total is 21 packets, were found to contain the quantity of drugs referred to in the first charge: that is 24.01 grammes of a mixture containing 1.21 grammes of salts of esters of morphine.

4. After his arrest, he was taker to his home which was searched and there was found a further quantity of 20.77 granmes of a mixture containing 1.12 grammes of salts of esters of morphine. These are the drugs referred to in second charge and were contained in four phials which were held in a laisee packet.

5. The presumptions having been raised the Applicant sought to rebut them. It was his evidence that he had gone to the Sir Hobert Flack Health Centre for the purpose of taking methadone. He was, at the age of 42, a drug addict of long standing. At the clinic he bought some drugs from a man. As he did not want to actually go into the clinic with the drugs on his he hid them in some long grass pearly. He says that it was in that grass that the police found the drugs and not on him. Further be suggests that the police had mixed up the scene they had observed and that they got the identity of the seller and the buyer confused. What the police had seen was the applicant buying the drugs which he hid in the grass and not his selling drugs. He emphasised that the drugs were for his own consumption, a stand which he adopted from the outset that is immediately on arrest. On him then was found the amount of HK$62, ¥1,500 and a single U.S. dollar.

6. The trial judge considered the evidence with care. He accepted that given by the police. He had been urged by the Applicant's legal representative in the Court below to ignore evidence of what happened outside the Centre but he, quite properly, did not and having considered what the Applicant had said to him be did not believe him.

7. The Applicant has urged upon us today that the trial judge had compared and wrongly compared his evidence with that of the police and that he should not have believed the police evidence. He emphasises that the amount of money found on him was of considerable importance in relation to any dealings which he might have had.

8. Put this was entirely a matter for the seeing and hearing judge and nothing that the Applicant had said and nothing on the record indicates that the judge was wrong in the view he took. On the evidence which was before him he was entitled to come to the conclusion he did and that evidence justified those conclusions. The application for leave to appeal against conviction is refused.