R. v. LEUNG SAU FUK

CACC000006/1995

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 6
(Criminal)

 

BETWEEN
	THE QUEEN
	AND
	LEUNG SAU-FUK

______________

 

Coram: Power V.-P., Mortimer and Mayo JJ.A.

Date of Judgment: 21 June 1995

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

Mortimer, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court) :

1. The applicant was convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs by His Honour Judge Bailey in the District Court on 12th December 1994. He was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.

2. The offence took place on 3rd March 1994. Plain clothes officers noticed the applicant acting suspiciously outside a store in Wang Chau, Yuen Long. They approached the applicant and searched him. In a newspaper packet in his jacket pocket they found five bundles each of 10 plastic straws which contained a mixture comprising 14.06 grammes heroin of a total street value of $5,000. When asked about the heroin, he replied, "Ah Sir, it's white powder". "It's for my own consumption, please Sir, give me a chance".

3. The applicant did not give evidence at his trial. But the defence was that the officers found nothing on him and the drugs came from a mailbox nearby. There was cross-examination to the effect that the admissions to the police officers were not made. There were said by counsel to be inconsistencies between the evidence of the two police officers. These were considered by the judge and thought to be more apparent than real.

4. The applicant repeats before this Court as grounds of appeal what he put forward below. He further advances points concerning the evidence which was before the judge. But these are not grounds upon which this Court finds it possible to act.

5. As we have said, the applicant did not give evidence below. The judge considered all the circumstances including the admissions, the way in which the drugs were packaged, the so-called inconsistencies in the evidence and the amount of drugs. He concluded that the offence had been proved. There was ample evidence upon which he could reach that conclusion. This application is dismissed.

Representation:

Applicant in person

Mr John Reading (Crown Prosecutor) for Crown/Respondent