R. v. CHAN WAI LEONG, JOIE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 628

(Criminal)

____________________

____________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

Nazareth V-P (giving the judgment of the Court) :

1. On 15th October 1996 the applicant, Chan Wai-leong, was convicted by Her Honour Judge Chu in the District Court of trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely 278.36 grammes of a mixture containing 33.17 grammes of heroin hydrocholoride. He now seeks leave to appeal against conviction.

2. The facts were quite simple. On the evening of 15th March 1996 the New Territories South Special Duties Squad mounted a plainclothes anti-dangerous drug operation in the vicinity of Chung On Street, Tsuen Wan. At about 37 minutes after midnight, the applicant was seen by two police officers, PW1 and PW2, to alight from a goods vehicle which was parked on Chung On street. He was holding a purple plastic bag in his right hand. The police officers went up to him and searched him. Fifteen packets of heroin and a Giordano plastic bag containing another 13 packets of heroin were found inside the purple plastic bag he was holding. He was arrested and cautioned by PW1. Under caution, the applicant asked for a chance and volunteered the name and address of a drug distributor, Mo Chai, saying there was a lot of white powder at the address he gave.

3. At his trial the applicant elected to remain silent. He did not call any evidence. The defence case was put by way of cross-examination by his defence counsel. It was to the effect that he was looking into a Honda Civic private car on Chung On Street when he was approached by PW1 and PW2. He was pushed from behind, then taken on board a police van where he was questioned by PW1. It was suggested that PW1 alleged that the car belonged to a person called Mo Chai and that he accused the applicant of being a foki of Mo Chai. It was suggested that the applicant denied those suggestions and also denied knowing Mo Chai. The thrust of the defence was that the applicant did not have any drugs on him and was framed.

4. In his written notice of application for leave to appeal against conviction which was dated 12th November 1996, the applicant gave only these grounds:

"The trial judge made mistakes and caused me unable to enjoy the benefit of doubt."

5. As we have said, at his trial he was represented by counsel. Before us today, he appears in person. He has added to what he stated in his application only this:

"I found trial judge sided with the prosecution. Also she founded only on the evidence of the police officers, what if they framed me."

6. We have gone carefully through the summary of facts and the reasons for verdict that the judge has given. It is true that she accepted the evidence of the two police officers but she did so only after the most careful examination of the evidence of those two witnesses, and very careful consideration of the attack made by defence counsel upon that evidence. Having considered all those matters, she accepted the evidence of the two police officers, having heard and seen them. Indeed, we cannot help being impressed by the care with which the judge addressed the entire matter in her very full and very detailed judgment.

7. Besides she afforded every consideration to the defence. Indeed, after she had received the closing submissions from counsel on both sides, and had come to the point that the verdict was to be delivered, she yet allowed defence counsel to re-open the case to make additional submissions in support of the allegation made in cross-examination of a frame-up. Having heard those additional submissions, she addressed them very fully in her considered and detailed judgment. She gave her reasons for rejecting that submission and indeed all the other submissions made.

8. Having carefully gone through the judgment, we find nothing in any of the points made before us by the applicant or in any of the other points taken in his written notice of application. We find no reason to fault the judgment. The application for leave to appeal is refused.