THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG HO SANG

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

JUDGMENT

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

Mayo JA:

1. The appellant appeals against his conviction for possession of dangerous drugs. According to the prosecution case the appellant was seen by two police officers sitting on the stairs in a Wilson Carpark on 4 March 1996. He was searched and a small quantity of dangerous drugs was found on his person. According to the police officers he claimed that the dangerous drugs were for his own consumption.

2. At his trial before the learned magistrate Mr Holmes the appellant gave evidence to the effect that the dangerous drugs had been planted on him by the officers.

3. The magistrate was faced with a direct conflict of evidence. For the reasons he gave the magistrate accepted the evidence of the officers and rejected the appellant's evidence. It is pertinent to observe that when Mr Holmes was sentencing the appellant, the appellant stated that the dangerous drugs had been for his own use. There is nothing in what the appellant had said before me that satisfies me that the findings of the magistrate should in any way be interfered with. The application is dismissed.