LAM YUEN v. THE QUEEN

CACC000698/1972

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 698 OF 1972

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

BETWEEN
	LAM Yuen	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 17th November, 1972.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. This Appellant was one of five defendants charged with possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of trafficking and with smoking a dangerous drug. This Appellant was convicted on the first charge and acquitted on the second: the other four Defendants were acquitted on the first charge and convicted on the second.

2. The evidence was that a party of police officers led by a Chief Inspector of Police raided a room in a Resettlement block at Shek Kip Mei: it was a small flat which was divided into three cubicles: when the police arrived the outside door was open and the party was led into the premises by a Sergeant. He said that he saw the Appellant sitting in the entrance to one of the cubicles: there was a curtain across the entrance to this cubicle and it hung so that only half the back of the Appellant was visible from outside. It is thus apparent that the Appellant was sitting facing into the cubicle. He was found to be holding in his hand a quantity of bank notes and coins - twelve $10 notes, sixteen $5 notes and a roll of 10^o coins amounting to five dollars. When he was searched a number of $1 coins was found in his pocket. Inside the cubicle there was what has been variously described as a double bunk and a bunk with a shelf over it. On the lower tier there were four men squatting: all four of them had in their hands pipes and tin foils and they were in the act of smoking. A search was made in the premises and on the upper tier of this contraption in the cubicle was found a packet which contained dangerous drugs. This evidence was given by the Sergeant and was corroborated by the other officers.

3. This Appellant said that he did not know that there were any people smoking in his premises, but he conceded that this flat did belong to him. His story was that he came home with his takings from his barber's business and started to count his takings because he wanted to remit some money to his mother in Macau. Before me the story has been slightly changed and he says that the money consisted of $120 which he had just obtained from the Post Office as a result of cashing a voucher from the Social Welfare Department. A quick calculation will indicate that he had more than $120 in his possession. The cubicle was extremely small - about five feet by six feet. As I say, the Appellant was sitting in the entrance looking inwards, yet he says to me that he did not know there was anybody smoking in the cubicle.

4. There was in my view, ample evidence to justify a conviction on the possession charge, but the learned magistrate was quite right to dismiss the smoking charge against this Appellant.

5. The appeal must be dismissed.

 

17th November, 1972.

 

Representation: