THE QUEEN v. LUI PAK KEUNG

CACC000595/1991

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1991, No 595 (Criminal)

BETWEEN

	THE QUEEN	Respondent
	AND
	LUI PAK KEUNG	Applicant

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

Coram: Hon Fuad, V-P, Power, JA and Ryan J

Date of Hearing: 9 October 1991

Date of Judgment: 9 October 1991

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

Fuad, V-P (giving the judgment of the Court) :

1. The applicant, Lui Pak Keung, who is aged 28, was convicted on 21 November 1990 in the District Court of possessing dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking and on the same day was sentenced to three years imprisonment. He was tried before Mr. G.P. Muttrie sitting as a Deputy Judge of the District Court. He now seeks leave to appeal against his conviction.

2. His grounds of appeal are based entirely on an application to adducefresh evidence before the Court of Appeal, under s.83 (V) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. The grounds of appeal are as follows: -

	"1.	The conviction is unsafe and unsatisfactory in that the defence solicitors:
		(i)	Failed to interview a vital defence witness despite being given by the Appellant details of the witness and the relevance of his evidence. The solicitors later advised the Appellant that it was not necessary to call this witness and as a result he was not called upon to give evidence at trial.
		(ii)	Failed to properly deal with the question of fingerprint; evidence' despite having been advised by the Appellant that three fingerprints had been lifted from drug related articles which were alleged to have been in the possession of the Appellant at the time of his arrest.
	This failure of the defence solicitors to interview the witness or to properly deal with the 'fingerprint' question indicates such an ignorance of their professional obligations as to render the value of their assistance highly questionable."

3. We have fully considered the affidavit evidence that was placed before us in connection with the application to adduce fresh evidence but we were not be ,persuaded, having regard to the course taken by the trial, that it was necessary or expedient in the interests of justice to take any of the courses set out in the section.

4. Mr. Poll conceded that if his application failed there were no further grounds to support an application for leave to appeal against the conviction. The facts were very simple. The case was tried carefully by the judge.  He dealt with such difficulties in the case as they were and gave full and cogent reasons why he believed the applicant was guilty. He had acquitted the applicant's brother who was the 2nd accused at the close of the prosecution case. The conviction is unassailable and the application for leave to appeal against conviction is refused.

(K.T. Fuad) Vice President

(N.P. Power) Justice of Appeal

(T.J. Ryan) Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr. M. Poll (HIS Andy Lo & CO) for the Applicant

Mr. John McNamara( Crown Prosecutor) for the Crown/Respondent