LEUNG LIM v. THE QUEEN

CACC000655/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.655 OF 1968

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

BETWEEN
	LEUNG LIM	Appellant
	AND
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Huggins J.

Date of Judgment: 26 November 1968

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins J:

1. The appellant was convicted on charges of unlawful possession of dangerous drugs and smoking dangerous drugs. He appeals against those convictions. The learned magistrate in returning his verdict said: "Guilty of possession of all the dangerous drugs exhibited in the hut." He did not then record a verdict on the smoking charge, but the formal conviction remedies the omission.

2. There was the clearest evidence that the police saw the appellant smoking and traces of the drugs were found in the paper tube which he was using. The drugs to which the possession charge relates were found on the bed on which the appellant was sitting. His defence was that he was not in the hut at all but in the street. That defence was rejected by the learned magistrate.

3. The only real issue in this case was, I think, whether the evidence justified a finding that the appellant was in possession of these further drugs. The learned magistrate considered this aspect of the case very carefully. From the similarity of the drugs to those found in the pipe, from the proximity of the appellant to the further drugs and from the fact that the appellant was the sole occupant of the hut the learned magistrate inferred that the appellant must have known of the existence of these drugs and that he had control of them. It is argued for the Crown that a finding of control in the circumstances of this case was in effect a finding of possession. I think that is right and in my view the inferences which the magistrate drew were proper inferences to be drawn from the evidence.

4. Before me the appellant has merely repeated the story which he told to the learned magistrate. This appeal must be dismissed.

 

26th November, 1968.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Mr. Alexander for the Respondent