HKSAR v. WEN KA MING DEJECTION

CACC 646/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 646 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC 201 OF 1999)

______________

______________

__________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

__________________________

Hon Mayo VP (giving the reasons for judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant was convicted of a conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs after a trial in the High Court before Deputy Judge Longley and a jury. He now seeks leave to appeal against his conviction.

2. Particulars of the offence were that:

"Wen Ka-ming Dejection, on divers dates between and including the 2nd day of November, 1998 and the 15th day of December 1998 in Hong Kong, conspired with Lau Yuk-ching and other persons to traffic in a dangerous drug, namely methamphetamine hydrochloride."

3. There were two main sources of evidence against the applicant. The first was the evidence of Ms Lau who is referred to in the indictment and the second is the applicant's inculpatory statements.

4. As will be appreciated Ms Lau was a fellow conspirator. When she gave evidence she had already been convicted of the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs and was serving a four-year sentence of imprisonment.

5. She gave evidence of the relationship which had developed between herself and the applicant. When they first met she was only aged 14. At the time of the alleged conspiracy she was aged about 16. It appears that she had been short of funds. She had, according to her testimony, agreed to assist the applicant in trafficking in 'ice'. Her role was to effect deliveries of relatively small quantities of the dangerous drugs and on occasion receive payment for the deliveries. She gave evidence concerning a delivery of dangerous drugs made at the Toothsone Restaurant in Kowloon.

6. She said that she had on 15 December 1998 travelled on the train from Fanling with the applicant. The applicant had got off the train at Mongkok and she had got off at Jordan. In accordance with instructions she had been given by the applicant she had gone to premises at 37 Jordan Road to collect two ounces of 'ice'. She had been in communication by way of a mobile telephone with the applicant and he had instructed her to proceed to the Toothsone Restaurant where she was to make contact with a "Nepalese looking" man. She was to give the dangerous drugs to this man and in return receive $4,400. She complied with these instructions. Shortly after effecting delivery as instructed she was arrested by the police.

7. Police officers gave evidence of communicating by telephone with a man and arranging for the purchase of 'ice' for the sum of $4,400 and that the person taking the delivery would be a "Nepalese looking" man.

8. The Judge gave a full warning concerning the dangers attaching to accepting the evidence of an accomplice.

9. The applicant was arrested on 2 March 1999. According to the evidence of the police officers who made the arrest the applicant made a number of admissions. The Judge dealt with this evidence in some detail. The evidence was mainly contained in two cautioned statements and amounted to an admission to being a party to a conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs.

10. The applicant made a number of serious allegations against the police officers. The Judge considered all of the evidence and was satisfied that the statements had been made freely and voluntarily and admitted them as evidence.

11. The Applicant went into the witness box and gave evidence. According to him the reason why Ms Lau had given evidence against him was that on the morning in question he had ordered her to vacate the premises he was occupying as he had found that she had dangerous drugs in the flat. He denied that he had any connection with the dangerous drugs himself.

12. In the afternoon of 15 December he had visited his parents at Yuen Long and played mahjong from the afternoon into the evening and thereafter had stayed the night at his parents' place. His brother was also there. They all gave evidence supporting the applicant's evidence. They had been able to remember the date on account of the fact that on the following day his parents had gone to China.

13. As indicated earlier he said that the statements attributed to him had only been made as a result of gross misconduct on the part of the police officers concerned. He was not even fully aware what had been said in the statements.

14. Initially the applicant placed reliance upon his own handwritten ground of appeal. This was that the Judge had misdirected the jury.

15. When he was first before us the applicant was unable to identify any misdirections in the Judge's summing up.

16. He persisted in making serious allegations against the police officers concerned. The fact of the matter is that all of the relevant evidence was before the jury and they made their determination in respect of it after having received careful and detailed directions from the Judge.

17. The applicant raised other matters with us but these do not persuade us that the conviction was in any way unsafe or unsatisfactory. The application is dismissed.