FONG HOI v. THE QUEEN

CACC000338/1971

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 338 OF 1971

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

 

BETWEEN
	FONG HOI	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 14th July, 1971.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The Appellant was charged under s.27 of the Theft Ordinance with going equipped for stealing and under s.7(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance with possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. He appeals against conviction.

2. There was evidence that two Police Officers were on patrol in Kilung Street when they saw the Appellant, whom one of them recognised. The Appellant has in fact been before the courts on no less than 37 previous occasions. The officers said that the Appellant was acting suspiciously and they therefore kept him under observation. It appeared that he was seeking an opportunity to steal and eventually one of the officers went up to him and caught hold of his hand. The officer says that between the fingers of the Appellant's right hand he found a segment of razor blade. In his right trousers pocket he found several small packets. He asked the Defendant what was in the packets and he replied "white powder".

3. The substance of this evidence was corroborated by the second constable, who came up a few moments after the Appellant was arrested because this officer had been on the other side of the road. There was then evidence that the packets had been taken to the Police Station and then to the Government Chemist, to whom they were handed for analysis. They were subsequently collected from the Government Chemist together with a certificate, which showed that they contained dangerous drugs.

4. The Appellant made an unsworn statement from the dock in which he told a very different story from that which he has put before me in this Court. He said that he was searched in the Police Station and that nothing was found on him (which may be true, because the Police said that he had been searched in the street and that various items had been found there). He said the Police asked him to hand over "two things"; that he didn't know what two things they were referring to and that an officer said: "I will give you several packets to enjoy and also a tiny cigarette butt" which, again, the Appellant did not understand; that the Police Officer then wrote down something, but he did not know what it was; that he was asked to sign his name; that he asked why and was told it was "possession of dangerous drugs and a tiny cigarette butt" and that again he didn't know what it meant but he signed it. Before me the Appellant has suggested that in the Police Station he was asked to act as a "police informer" and that because he refused the Police then planted these items on him. Not one word of any such invitation to act as a police informer was mentioned to the Magistrate. However, that is neither here nor there because the ground of appeal is that there was no evidence or insufficient evidence whereon to find the conviction. It is quite clear that if the evidence which I have outlined was believed (as it was believed) there was ample evidence upon which to found the conviction.

5. Having heard the Appellant in this Court I am not surprised that the learned Magistrate disbelieved the Appellant, though, of course, I have not heard the Police officers. There was evidence. It was believed. It was sufficient to justify conviction and the appeal is dismissed.

 

14th July, 1971.

 

Representation: