HKSAR v. NGUYEN, THI NGA

HCMA214/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 214/2006

(ON APPEAL FROM KCCC 976 OF 2005)

_________________

_________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

1. This is an appeal against conviction of two offences contrary to the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance, based on allegations that the Appellant was dealing with cigarettes upon which duty had not been paid.

2. The prosecution below was based on the evidence of Customs officers who saw a co-accused, who was D1 at the trial, leave an address in Canton Road.  They saw him carrying a plastic bag which they later found to contain 400 cigarettes, the subject of the 1st charge.  They watched him walk to the corner of Canton Road and Nelson Street and place the bag at the feet of this Appellant. 

3. The Appellant gave evidence.  She said she was just standing there waiting for a friend to go shopping and that this man was completely unknown to her, a stranger.  The Magistrate did not believe her.  The reason he did not believe her is because the man, this Appellant and the Customs officers then went back to the address in Canton Road where, in addition to the cigarettes found there, which are the subject of the 2nd charge, there was an electricity bill.  That electricity bill was in the name of the Appellant.  Indeed, a witness was called from China Light and Power who produced a certified true copy of the contract which, of course, had the name of this Appellant and her identity card number on it.

4. The Appellant said she did not know anything about this room and that she had nothing to do with the electricity contract.  The obvious connection between the man who was the 1st Defendant at trial and the room, and the connection between the room and the electricity bill with this Appellant’s details upon it, demonstrated to the Magistrate, and to me, that her evidence about not knowing the 1st Defendant was untrue.  The idea that he or his confederates had somehow got the details of this Appellant and used them to open an electricity contract, coinciding with that very man dropping the cigarettes at her feet in the street, is one that cannot be countenanced, sensibly, as a mere coincidence. 

5. Once the explanation is rejected, the inference of guilt on both charges is overwhelming.  The appeal is dismissed.

Representations: