THE QUEEN v. LUI TAK CHIU

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

Kempster, JA (giving the judgment of the Court) :

1. On 14 December 1989 Lui Tak Chiu appeared before His Honour Judge Corcoran in the District Court and, after trial, was convicted of possessing a quantity of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. He seeks leave to appeal against that conviction.

2. The circumstances disclosed were to the effect that at about 6 o'clock on the evening of 31 May 1989 the applicant was stopped near a lift on the 11th floor of Tung Hoi House, Tai Hang Tung Estate, and searched. In the pocket of his shirt a yellow paper bag was found and, when opened in the applicant's presence, five packets of what were thought to be dangerous drugs were discovered. Later on those packets were analysed and found to contain 33.93 grammes of a mixture containing 1.63 grammes of heroin. That is a weak mixture. He was brought to North Kowloon Magistrate's court on the following morning and searched again. There was then found, in his underpants, another plastic bag containing 21 packets of suspected dangerous drugs. "When subsequently analysed those packets were found to contain 10.73 grammes of a mixture containing 9.60 grammes of heroin; a degree of purity which comes into the category of "No. 4 heroin".

3. The substantial defence which the applicant advanced at trial and supported by his evidence was that he had acquired these relatively large quantities of drugs for his own consumption. Today he submits that the judge should have accepted his evidence in that regard. The judge did not accept his explanation, which was quite detailed, setting out his wages and his outgoings. Having regard to the quantity a presumption of trafficking had been raised.

4. So this comes in the end, like so many drug cases, to the question whether or not the judge was entitled to conclude, as he did, that the presumption was not rebutted. We see no grounds to fault the judge's assessment on the evidence. In the premises the application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.