THE QUEEN v. YEUNG TAI KIN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1369 OF 1989

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

BETWEEN

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Penlington, J.A.:

1. This is an appeal against conviction of a charge of assault against police officers.

2. The offence is alleged to have taken place on 14th May this year. Two police officers approached the Appellant whom they suspected of carrying dangerous drugs. Their evidence was that he seemed to put the drugs into his mouth and then refused to let the police officers see what was in his mouth. He resisted and there was a struggle, one of the police officers receiving very minor injuries.

3. The Appellant gave evidence in which he denied the assault. The magistrate however accepted the evidence given by the police officers and convicted him of the charge.

4. He says in his appeal that in fact the only reason he was charged was that a report had been made that the police officers were assaulting him, not the other way round. I note that the Appellant was X-rayed but in fact nothing was found. Nevertheless I am satisfied that there was evidence which the magistrate was entitled to accept that he had struggled and resisted the constables who were in the execution of their duty. The appeal against conviction is refused.

5. The Appellant had not appealed against his sentence but he indicates that he now does wish to do so. I am however satisfied that this is a relevant offence, as defined in the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Ordinance, and that the magistrate was entitled to order him to be detained in a drug addiction treatment centre, even though the offence was not of taking drugs. I am satisfied that from his record a period in the drug addiction treatment centre is proper for him. I am satisfied that this is not an occasion where I should give leave to appeal against sentence out of time.