SO YET-HON v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000723/1972
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 723 OF 1972
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| SO Yet-hon | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Huggins, J.
Date of Judgment: 17th November 1972.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. The Appellant was charged with unlawful possession of a dangerous drug. This was the usual type of case where, a man being stopped in the street and searched, in his pocket was found a packet which later proved to contain dangerous drugs. The Appellant said that he was not arrested by the man who said he arrested him and contended that the whole case was a frame-up by the police.
2. This was a case where the learned magistrate had to make up his mind whether or not he was satisfied that the police evidence was true. He heard the witnesses and he was so satisfied. It is impossible for me to say that he was wrong. Indeed, the Appellant, when cross-examined, said that he was never searched at any time and the learned magistrate thought that was unlikely.
3. In my view there is no justification for my interfering with this conviction. I should perhaps say that there was one passage in his Statement of Findings which might possibly have been interpreted as suggesting that the magistrate had to weigh one story against another, for he said:
"on the evidence as a whole I was left in no doubt that the prosecution's version was the correct one and accordingly found the charge proved."
However, he had earlier made it quite clear that he understood the true nature of the burden of proof, for he said:
"My principal function remaining was to decide which of the two versions I preferred and, if the prosecution, was I satisfied beyond reasonable doubt."
4. The appeal is dismissed.
17th November 1972.
Representation: