TSANG MUK-CHUEN v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000504/1976
| IN THE SUPREME COURT | |
| Criminal Appeal | |
| 1976 No. 504 |
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| TSANG Muk-chuen | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| The Queen | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: McMullin J. in Court.
Date of Judgment: 26th May 1976.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. This is another case in which the conviction of the defendant on a charge of trafficking of dangerous drugs depends strictly upon the mechanics of the Ordinance and his failure to satisfy a magistrate that he possessed the drugs for his own consumption. As I observed in Criminal Appeal No. 503 of 1976 it is very much within the magistrate's preserve to decide whether circumstances which raise the presumption are such that a true case of trafficking has been made out. In discharging that task the question of the demeanour of the defendant must be a matter of first importance as also any other circumstances surrounding his arrest which might indicate an attempt to pass drugs on to other persons. No evidence of the latter kind appears here. The appellant who was found in possession of only 9 small packets amounting to 0.5 gramme of heroin said that he had just been paid and had purchased these drugs in the Walled City. On the appeal he said he had bought several days supply to minimize the risk of being caught. Such a plea is not on the face of it absurd. It could be that another magistrate might have taken a different view of the substance of that suggestion. At all events it is clear that the quantum involved in this case was very much at the less suspicious end of the spectrum. The appellant has a conviction for possession in 1974 as a result of which he was bound over in the sum of $250 for six months. I take the view that the sentence in the present case was manifestly excessive in view of the very small quantum of drugs involved and I allow the appeal to the extent that the sentence of one year and nine months is set aside and a sentence of twelve months only is substituted therefor.
| (A.M. McMullin) | |
| Judge of the High Court |
Representation:
Appellant in person.
Mr. Amey for Crown/Respondent.