THE QUEEN v. SANKER HARILAL

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Hon, Yang, CJ:

1. The applicant Sanker Harilal was convicted after trial of six charges of drug offences and sentenced to a total of three years?imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence.

2. Of the six charges, two are for trafficking in dangerous drugs, three for offering to traffick in dangerous drugs and one for trafficking in a purported dangerous drug.

3. The key witness for the prosecution was Inspector Albert Chan whose evidence the prosecution mainly relied upon.

4. The judge in his Reasons for Verdict discussed evidence with great care, noting the strength and weaknesses in the evidence, and also considered the applicant's evidence in some detail. In the end, the learned trial judge accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as being truthful and rejected the evidence of the applicant as being untruthful.

5. Three grounds of appeal have been advanced before us. Firstly, it is said that transcripts of taped conversation were suppressed by the police. Secondly, the applicant was framed up by the police, and thirdly what the applicant did was simply to attempt to deceive the law enforcement agents (who were pretending to be buyers) by offering them some washing powder as dangerous drugs.

6. The applicant prepared his written grounds of appeal in some detail - a hand-written document occupying some 23 pages to which he added his oral statement, particularly touching upon Charge 3. Time and again he, stressed the point that the trial judge made errors and contradicted himself in the Reasons for Verdict. He made mistakes in the evaluation of evidence, and he failed to consider certain evidence favourable to the defence. Comments were also made on the perceived unsatisfactory nature of evidence regarding the taped conversations. The applicant maintained that the whole case was a complete fabrication.

7. The charges covered a period of several months from 19th July 1990 to March 1991. Putting it briefly, there were a series of meetings between Albert Chan and his colleagues on the one hand, and the applicant and his colleagues on the other hand. There were protracted negotiations for the sale of heroin. They met at several places. Prices and quantity were discussed and as the applicant maintained, there was an attempt to deceive the so-called buyers by offering washing powder as dangerous drugs.

8. We have considered the submissions of the applicant with care, noting that he is unrepresented and that English is not his first language. However, we can find nothing in the judge's Reasons for Verdict that cause us any concern. We have no doubt whatsoever that the conviction was correct. The application for leave to appeal against conviction is accordingly dismissed.

9. On his appeal against sentence, he said that not being guilty of the offences he should not be sentenced. He also made the point that he has a wife and son whose whereabouts he does not know.

10. In our view, for the -offences now under consideration, a totality of three years is, if anything, on the lenient side. The application for -leave to appeal against sentence is therefore also dismissed.