LEE TAK v. THE QUEEN

CACC000419/1976

  

IN THE SUPREME COURT
	Criminal Appeal
	1976 No. 419

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

  

BETWEEN
	LEE TAK	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.A.

Date of Judgment: 13th May 1976.

  

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

JUDGMENT

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

  

1. The charge before the magistrate was possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. The Appellant's plea is recorded as being "I was waiting to buy drugs not found on my person" and that was correctly entered as a plea of Not guilty. Evidence was led that the Appellant was kept under observation and seen to be trafficking in something. Eventually he was arrested. Money was found on his person and dangerous drugs were found in a place to which he had been constantly going back and forth.

2. The Appellant's evidence was that he was watching television when the officers came up and said that they suspected that he had dangerous drugs. He said the officers then planted the drugs on him and alleged some of the money found on him to have been the proceeds of the drugs.

3. A statement alleged to have been made by the Appellant had originally been tendered in evidence by the Crown but, when objection was taken to it, it was withdrawn, the objection being that it was obtained as a result of physical violence. The Appellant sought to give evidence about this statement and in particular about the manner in which it was taken, but he was stopped by the magistrate in circumstances which make it appear to me that the magistrate thought the evidence irrelevant. With respect I think that was wrong. If the Appellant could have established that he was forced by violence to make a confession statement that would have tended to undermine the evidence for the prosecution. Therefore the Appellant should not have been stopped from giving that evidence. On the other hand the Appellant had been before another magistrate earlier on and he admitted in cross-examination that on that occasion his plea was "I bought it for my own consumption". He said, however, that when he made that statement he was "feeling dizzy".

4. The question I have to decide is whether the improper exclusion of evidence was material. Counsel for the Crown argues that the other evidence was overwhelming and I am compelled to agree. This appeal must, therefore, be dismissed.

  

13th May 1976.

  

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Edwards, c.c. for Crown/Respondent.