LAW CHIU-YUEN v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000052/1976
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 52 OF 1976
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| LAW Chiu-yuen | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Cons, J.
Date of Judgment: 26 February 1976
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. The appellant pleaded not guilty to possession of heroin for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. Evidence was given by one constable that he was in possession of some 40 small packets. In his cross-examination of the constable the defendant admitted that he was in possession of some undefined but lesser amount. He declined to cross-examine the second constable who gave evidence and elected to give no evidence at all himself.
2. In his statement of findings the magistrate does not mention that he relied on the presumption contained in section 46 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance although he did explain the effect of this presumption to the appellant at the close of the prosecution case. I must therefore assume that in coming to his conclusions the magistrate did not rely upon that presumption: Reg. v. Ngan Kai-shui(1). However, even without that presumption there is to my mind just sufficient evidence which, if unexplained as it was, would support a conviction in the present instance. If I should be wrong in this I would in any event have applied the presumption myself: ibid at 169.
3. The sentence imposed was one of two and a half years. This is not the first drug offence for the appellant and indeed he had only been out of prison for some two months when he committed it. The magistrate says that he was tempted to impose a sentence of three years. If he had done so I would not have interfered.
4. For these reasons the appeals against both conviction and sentence are dismissed.
Representation:
Appellant in person.
B.T. Caird, Sr. Crown Counsel, for the respondent.
(1) [1973] H.K.L.R. 161 at 166