YU SHUI LUN v. THE QUEEN

CACC000780/1972

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 780 OF 1972

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

 

BETWEEN
	YU SHUI LUN	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 1st December, 1972.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The Appellant was charged with possession of a dangerous drug for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. The case against him was that he was seen by two plain-clothes police officers on patrol: they had information that there was a person selling dangerous drugs to workers of the Tai Koo Dockyard: their attention was drawn to the Appellant because he was standing still by a pillar while many workers were walking past: after a while they went over and searched him. They said that they found dangerous drugs on him. Analysis proved that they were in fact dangerous drugs: there was one packet containing 1.7 grammes of a mixture containing 0.6 gramme of salts of esters of morphine.

2. The Appellant's defence was that he was approached by the police officer and asked to go to the Police Station for enquiries because he was suspected of having stolen property. He said that he was not searched, that when he was at the Police Station somebody produced the packet of drugs, asked the Appellant whether it belonged to him and laughed and then said to the dangerous drugs constable that this packet was attributed to "the old man", whereupon the arresting officer said "Yes, to fix him up". This was the story in essence which was told to the learned magistrate and which has been told to me in great detail. In effect the submission to the learned magistrate was that the police had progressed from framing the Appellant with obstruction charges to framing him with dangerous drug offences.

3. The learned magistrate in his Reasons did make one unfortunate statement. He said:

          "Unfortunately for the defendant there was nothing to confirm his evidence while that of the arresting officer was confirmed on all material points by P.W.2 or P.W.3."

Read alone that might be taken as suggesting that unless the Appellant produced some corroborative evidence he was not to be believed. However, the magistrate went on to say:

          "Taking the evidence as presented I was satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that the possession of dangerous drug was proved",

and he relied upon the presumption for the trafficking element.

4. I think it is clear that the learned magistrate applied the right test and the appeal is dismissed.

 

1st December, 1972.

 

Representation: