R. v. NG KAM YIN and Another

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 349
(Criminal)

____________

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

Hon Yang, C.J.:

1. The 1st applicant, Ng Kam Yin, was convicted after trial of conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs and possession of dangerous drugs. The dangerous drugs in question was 4.01 grammes of a mixture containing 0.92 gramme of salts of esters of morphine, 20.09 grammes of methylamphetamine hydrochloride and traces of diacetylmorphine. He has abandoned his application to appeal against sentence.

2. The 2nd applicant, Choi Chui Kwong, was likewise convicted of conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs and another count of possession of dangerous drugs. In his case, the drugs involved were 10.724 grammes of methylamphetamine hydrochloride and 5.40 grammes of a mixture containing 2.12 grammes of salts of esters of morphine. He was sentenced to 15 years on the conspiracy count and 2 years on the count for possession of dangerous drugs. A suspended sentence which was passed on him earlier for possession of dangerous drug was activated. But all these sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The totality was 15 years.

3. The facts of the case need only be briefly stated. Following a meeting between the 1st applicant and an undercover police officer on 3 June 1993, an agreement was reached between the two applicants and some other persons to supply five kilos of methylamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as "ice". According to the evidence, the applicants on 7 June concealed in a rubbish bin half a kilo of ice in the playground. They collected $30,000 from the police officers as the first payment and agreed that the balance of the drugs would be made available within two or three hours after the first part was delivered.

4. The offence was discovered after a trap set by the police.

5. In his appeal this morning, the 1st applicant simply said that he was feeling unwell during the trial and his illness was examined first by a general practitioner and then by a specialist, both of whom said he was suffering from some ordinary infection. Later on, still during the trial, he was seen by another specialist who said that he was suffering from a sexual disease. He said his lawyer asked the court that he be allowed to see a doctor. Having seen the doctor who was also a specialist, he was said to be "all right". He maintained this morning that because he was unwell at the trial, he required a new trial.

6. The 2nd applicant simply asks that the case be adjourned so that his lawyer could obtain the transcript of the proceedings. He claims that he has not come here prepared to argue the appeal himself.

7. We note that the date of hearing was fixed as long ago as 21 November 1994. He therefore had ample time to prepare his case. Then he said that his lawyer saw him last week and had asked for a letter from the Director of Legal Aid. He, the applicant, was asked by his lawyer to seek an adjournment.

8. We have studied the trial judge's summing up and we satisfied that there was no misdirection or non-direction on either fact or law. On the police evidence, which by their verdict, the jury accepted, the case against both applicants was overwhelming.

9. There are absolutely no merits whatsoever in either of what the applicants said. The applications are therefore refused. They are fortunate that we do not order loss of time.