WONG SUI PING v. THE QUEEN

CACC000651/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 651 OF 1968

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

BETWEEN
	WONG SUI PING	Appellant
	AND
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 25 November 1968

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J:

1. The appellant appeals against his conviction on a charge of unlawful possession of dangerous drugs. Evidence was given that the police received certain information as a result of which a party went to the Lo Fu Ngam Resettlement Estate. The party split up and shortly afterwards they saw two men going up the hillside. One of the witnesses said that it was quite apparent that the two men were in company together. The police approached from two different directions. When they were about 5 yards away the two men appeared to realize that the police were there and it is said that they both ran off. One man ran in one direction and the appellant, who was one of the two men, started to run up the hill. There is some contradiction in the evidence as to whether he actually ran at all. Constable Siu Sze-wing said in cross-examination that the appellant did not actually run but moved as though he was going to run. The appellant was arrested and the evidence was that a packet was found in his trouser's pocket and that the packet contained 70.75 grammes of diacetylmorphine hydrochloride. There is a remarkable contradiction in the evidence of both the first two prosecution witnesses: they both said that at 15.45 hours they went to the hillside and that at 15.42 they saw the two Chinese men coming up the hillside. However, the second witness changed that and said that they actually arrived at the hillside at 15.30 and this was corroborated by the detective inspector, Mr. Lam.

2. The appellant's story was that he was going on his own up the hillside to a building on the top of the hill, where he was to receive tuition in the Chinese opera. He says that he saw the other man ran away and that the police picked up the packet off the ground and, in effect, planted it on him. The police witnesses were adamant that the packet was found in the appellant's pocket and the officers who gave chase to the second man swear affirmatively that the man never threw anything down.

3. The learned magistrate reviewed the whole of the evidence, although he made no mention to the contradiction in the times, and he was satisfied that the drugs were in fact found in the pocket of the appellant. This was a matter which could only be decided by the learned magistrate who heard the witnesses and I am unable to say on a perusal of the record that he came to a wrong decision. In those circumstances the appeal must be dismissed.

 

25th November, 1968.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Mr. Sharatte for the Respondent