LAM CHUNG KEUNG v. R.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1992, No 292
(Criminal)

____________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

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

1. The applicant, Lam Chung-keung, was charged with possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking but was convicted of simple possession by His Honour Judge Daniell on 16th June 1992, and on 2nd July 1992 he was sentenced for 12 months imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against conviction.

2. The facts of the case are quite simple. On the evening of 8th February 1991 a party of police officers laid an ambush in the vicinity of a 3rd floor of 178 Reclamation Street, Yaumati. At about 6.20 p.m. on that day the applicant was seen pressing the door bell of the premises. He was stopped and searched by two police constables who subsequently gave evidence against him as the first and second prosecution witnesses. The applicant had, according to them, in his possession two "Lai See" packets found to contain a mixture of 20.71 grammes containing 13.06 grammes of salts of esters of morphine.

3. The applicant in his written grounds of appeal claims that the same police squad on the previous day arrested another person alleging precisely similar facts which, he says, was too much of a coincidence; he says the officer in charge at the scene had by the time of the trial forgotten about the matter and that the judge was partial in regarding that as understandable and thereby made an unjust decision; that one of the police constable (PW2) reversed his evidence as to the time he seized his identity card; that a witness, Wong Chun-hung, called by the court on the application of the defence, contradicted the police constables in testifying that they took him up to the 3rd floor, whereas they said he was pushed back into the flat. The applicant also complains that the prosecution did not give evidence of statements they had taken from him and he says (despite his objections to the statements) that this indicates a guilty conscience on the part of the prosecution and, moreover, that it is inconsistent with protection of his human rights. Therefore, he says, because of all the foregoing the trial was conducted in an extremely unfair way. Significantly, in his written grounds of appeal, he says that his counsel raised all these matters in his submissions to the trial judge. Therefore the judge would not have overlooked them in assessing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and, indeed, that is apparent from the judge's Reasons for Verdict in which the judge dealt with these matters and yet came to the conclusion that both the police constables impressed him as reliable and honest witnesses who were clearly at pains to put the facts fully and truthfully before the court. Likewise, he said the sergeant, whom the applicant suggests virtually framed him by producing these packets of drugs, was a truthful witness. Those findings were made after clear references to discrepancies in the evidence of these witnesses which the judge fully considered.

4. In the face of the judge's acceptance of that evidence, which it must be said there is nothing to fault, the applicant's grounds can be seen to have no merit. Leave to appeal against conviction must therefore be refused.