THE QUEEN v. CHAN KWAI NIN
HTML content
CACC000325/1985
1985, No. 325 (Criminal) |
Headnote
Missing Link in the Chain of Evidence.
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL | 1985, No. 325 (Criminal) |
BETWEEN
THE QUEEN
and
CHAN KWAI NIN |
-------------
Coram: McMullin, V.-P., Yang & Silke, JJ.A.
Date of Hearing: 8th October, 1985.
Date of delivery of judgment: 8th October, 1985.
___________
JUDGMENT
___________
Yang, J.A.:
1. The Applicant was arrested inside the World Trade Centre holding a blue carrier bag containing a white polythene bag inside which was a quantity of suspected dangerous drugs. The arresting officer handed the suspected dangerous drug to a police sergeant who was with him at the time. The Applicant was then taken to the security room of the World Trade Center for a body search. The fate of the polythene bag containing the suspected drug was not clearly described. According to the arresting officer's evidence he personally brought it to the police station. If so, he did not tell the Court when he took it back from the sergeant. At any rate, at some point of time after he had seized "the plastic bags", he took "these bags as exhibits" and handed them to the exhibits officer Police Constable 11303. At 9.30 p.m. the same evening, inside the Anti-narcotics Office, he sealed the suspected drug (presumably inside the polythene bag ) and handed it to the Dangerous Drug Office Police Constable 2563. It is not clear when and how he obtained the polythene bag from Police Constable 11303. There is nothing to show what happened to the suspected drug between its seizure at about 12.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. The evidence produced in Court was silent as to who was responsible for it during these nine hours, where and how it was kept, who had access to it, whether there was any possibility for some one to tamper with it, etc. There is therefore a major gap in the chain of evidence, accepted by Mr. Jackson, which renders the conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory.
2. In the circumstances, it will not be necessary for us to deal with the other grounds of application.
3. The application is allowed and treated as an appeal. The appeal is allowed and the conviction quashed.
T.L. Yang Justice of Appeal |
Representation:
Mr. J. Matthews (David Raverscroft & Co.) for Applicant.
Mr. C.G. Jackson, Crown Counsel for Respondent.