R. v. CHOI KA LEUNG

CACC000242/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No.242
(Criminal)

BETWEEN
	THE QUEEN
	AND
	CHOI KA LEUNG

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

Coram: Power, Ag. C.J., Mortimer, J.A. and Stuart-Moore, J.

Date of Hearing: 4 October 1996

Date of Judgment: 4 October 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Stuart-Moore, J. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 25 March 1996, this Applicant was convicted in the District Court following a trial before H.H. Judge Kilgour of trafficking in 81.67 grammes of a mixture containing 10.25 grammes of heroin hydrochloride. He has abandoned his appeal against the sentence of 4 1/2 years' imprisonment that was imposed, but he pursues his application for leave to appeal against conviction.

2. The Applicant's grounds indicate that as the evidence revealed no money and no customer for the drugs, in those circumstances there is no one for whom he could have bought them.

3. The facts were straightforward. The Applicant, aged 31, was stopped by police soon after he got out of a motor vehicle on 22 July 1995 in Tai Po. The drugs were allegedly found in his underpants. Police further alleged that he admitted acting as a courier, and that he asked to be given a chance.

4. The Applicant gave evidence at his trial to the effect that he had been framed by the police officers responsible for his arrest. It was his case that he had gone to find drugs to satisfy his ten-year addiction. He also testified that he had intended to find a man called 'Ah Lun', and that he had money with him for the purchase of drugs.

5. The Applicant, according to the learned Judge, was an unimpressive witness. By contrast the two young officers, on whom the case for the prosecution almost entirely depended, appeared sensible and credible. It was unwise of the learned judge to have commented that "no plausible motive emerged as to why (the officers) would want to jeopardise their careers or their livelihood trying to frame this particular defendant". The issue to be decided was whether the prosecution had proved their case on the basis of truthful and reliable evidence. The learned Judge found that it had. The evidence was overwhelming and so were the inferences to be drawn from it.

6. We refuse this application.

(N.P. Power)	(Barry Mortimer)	(M. Stuart-Moore)
Ag. Chief Justice	Justice of Appeal	Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr. W.D. Moultrie, S.C.C. (Crown Prosecutors) for the Respondent.

Applicant in person.