HKSAR v. CHAN WING CHUNG

CACC 322/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 322 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 345/1999)

__________________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Hon Mayo VP (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant was convicted after a trial in the District Court before H. H. Judge Toh of trafficking in dangerous drugs.

2. The Charge read:

"Statement of Offence

Trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134.

Particulars of Offence

CHAN Wing-chung, on the 17th day of December, 1998, at Ground Floor, Shek On House, Shek Lei Estate, Tsuen Wan, New Territories, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 6.55 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 6.48 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride."

3. He now seeks leave to appeal against his conviction.

4. The facts were very simple. Two police officers on anti-drug duties observed the applicant emerging from Shek On House in a furtive manner.

5. They approached him and searched him. They found seven packets in his pocket which contained the subject matter of the charge. According to the prosecution the applicant admitted that he had the dangerous drugs on him and claimed that it was for his own consumption, having bought them the previous day. He was taken back to the police station and a post-recorded cautioned statement was made by the applicant. A search was made of the premises occupied by him but nothing of significance was found.

6. At his trial the applicant contested the admissibility of his cautioned statement. He claimed that he had done a deal with the police officers that if he had admitted the offence no search would be conducted of his premises.

7. The Judge accepted the police officers as truthful and reliable witnesses and rejected the applicant's evidence and admitted the statement as evidence.

8. The Judge was satisfied at the appropriate level that the applicant was guilty as charged. She took cognizance of the fact that the dangerous drugs were in seven separate packages and from this inferred the intention to traffic in them when this was taken in conjunction with the fact that when he was stopped he was in the street. If he had bought them the previous day for his own use, he would not have had them on him on the street on the next day.

9. His latest grounds of appeal refer to what the applicant claims are inconsistencies in the timing of various eventualities and various other matters of minor detail.

10. None of this is of much assistance. It is almost invariably the case that these sort of inconsistencies do arise in cases where different witnesses are testifying to events.

11. What is clear however is that there was an overwhelmingly strong case against the applicant. The Judge found the charge proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This conviction was in no way unsafe or unsatisfactory and the application is dismissed. As it is wholly without merit we order that 3 months of the time the applicant has spent in custody will not count towards the sentence he is serving.