SO TONG v. THE QUEEN

CACC000688/1977

  

IN THE SUPREME COURT
	Criminal Appeal
	1977 No. 688

  

BETWEEN
	SO TONG	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Trainor, J.

Date of Judgment: 22nd July, 1977.

  

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

JUDGMENT

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

  

1. This is another case of the sort about which I made somewhat caustic comments some time ago.

2. The accused appeared in the Magistrates Court on the absurd charge that he "smoked a dangerous drug, to wit, 1 tinfoil containing less than 0.1 gramme of salts of esters of morphine, 1 match box cover containing less than 0.1 gramme of salts of esters of morphine.

3. It was on that absurdity that he was convicted and sentenced to nine months imprisonment. Not unnaturally he appealed, and appealed successfully.

4. But even had there been a properly proferred charge the appeal must still have been allowed.

5. The evidence of the first police witness was that he went into a room in 13, Kui Yan Lane and there saw two men one of whom was the appellant. He said the appellant was "sucking a match box and he held a pink strip of paper which was lit. He was smoking the fumes". He said he arrested the appellant, and his colleague arrested the 2nd man. He said he seized two paper strips, the tin foil held by the other man and the empty match boxes. The second police witness said he saw the two men in the room one of whom, the appellant, had an empty match box cover in his mouth. That was the entire evidence against the appellant.

6. The most that could possibly be made out of that evidence was that the appellant was inhaling the fumes or smoke from a piece of burning pink paper. It will be noted however, that there is no reference to a piece of pink paper in the charge; but to make it impossible for the conviction to be upheld no piece of paper, pink or otherwise was sent to the Government Chemist. All that was sent to him was the match box.

7. The facts found by the magistrate were that the appellant was seen sucking a match box and holding a paper strip which was lit. He then found that the articles were analysed and found to contain traces of dangerous drugs and referred to the chemist's certificate which was produced. No reference was made in the certificate to anything other than the match box, nor could there have been as the police officer who received the exhibits told the Court he only sent the match box to the chemist.

8. The appellant should never have been convicted and I allowed the appeal.

  

  

(J.P. TRAINOR J.)

  

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Mr. Alderdice, C.C. for respondent.