THE QUEEN v. WONG MEI FOOK

HCMA000660/1996

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT
	1996, No. 660
	Magistracy Appeal

BETWEEN
	THE QUEEN	Respondent
	and
	WONG MEI FOOK	Appellant

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

Coram: Hon Mayo JA in Court (sitting as an additional High Court Judge)

Date of hearing: 12 September 1996

Date of Judgment: 12 September 1996

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Mayo JA:

1. The appellant appeals against his conviction for trafficking in a small quantity of dangerous drugs. He pleaded not guilty to this offence in the South Kowloon Magistracy.

2. The learned magistrate Mr Tong Man sets out the relevant facts in his statement of findings.

3. On 4 September 1995 the appellant was arrested by a police party outside premises in Temple Street. The police had a search warrant and entered the premises being Block C, Room 1, 5/F, 236 Temple Street. The occupants of the flat were a couple who were PW3 and PW4 in the proceedings below.

4. The police found various paraphernalia used for diluting and packing dangerous drugs. They also found a plastic bag containing 22.11 grams of a mixture containing 1.77 grams of heroin. According to the police officers the appellant admitted that these articles and the dangerous drugs belonged to him. This was consistent with the contents of a cautioned statement made later by the appellant. The appellant did not contest the admissibility of this statement as evidence.

5. At his trial the appellant gave evidence that the statements he had made in his cautioned statement were untrue. He said that he had gone to the premises in question to consume a small quantity of dangerous drugs which he had brought with him. He had no knowledge concerning the various items which had been found by the police and the only reason why he had made the admissions that he had was that he had been under the impression that he would only be charged with possession of dangerous drugs. In this connection it is perhaps relevant to note that the introduction to the cautioned statement makes reference to trafficking in dangerous drugs not just possession.

6. Be that as it may there was ample evidence before the magistrate to enable him to be satisfied that the charge had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant has not put forward any convincing or compelling reasons to justify any interference with this conviction. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

 

 

	(Simon Mayo)
	sitting as an additional High Court Judge

 

Representation:

Mr Leung Kit Wai for Crown Prosecutor

Wong Mei Fook - Appellant in person/present