THE QUEEN v. TUNG CHI YIN
HTML content
HCMA000907/1996
| IN THE SUPREME COURT | |
| 1996, No. 907 | |
| Magistracy Appeal |
| BETWEEN | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent | |
| and | ||
| TUNG CHI YIN | Appellant |
-----------------
Coram: Hon Mayo JA in Court (sitting as an additional High Court Judge)
Date of hearing: 20 September 1996
Date of judgment: 20 September 1996
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
Mayo JA:
1. The appellant appeals against his convictions for possession of a small quantity of dangerous drugs and for resisting arrest.
2. A police officer gave evidence that he and a colleague in plainclothes were patrolling an area at 56 Choi Hung Road. They saw a man coming out of the building. When he saw the officers he went back in again. The officers approached the man and revealed their identity and told him not to make a move. The man was the appellant. He admitted being in possession of the small quantity of dangerous drugs and asked to be given a chance. He was searched and a small packet was found on him and was found to contain the dangerous drugs referred to in the charge. The other officer then attempted to put handcuffs on the appellant. The appellant pushed the officers away and a struggle ensued. Eventually the appellant was subdued. That was the prosecution case.
3. The appellant gave evidence at his trial and called one witness. It was his contention that the police officer who had given evidence against him had been previously known to him. He had had occasion to lodge a complaint against him regarding a previous incident and he assumed that the officer had been actuated by malice and had planted the dangerous drugs on him. His witness who was a resident of the premises gave evidence to the effect that three or four police officers had assaulted him, that is the appellant.
4. The magistrate carefully evaluated all of the relevant evidence. He was satisfied that PW1 who was a police officer was a truthful and reliable witness and he rejected the appellant's evidence and the evidence of the appellant's witness.
5. Nothing the appellant has said to me leads me to the conclusion that the magistrate's findings should be interfered with. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
| (Simon Mayo) | |
| sitting as an additional High Court Judge |
Representation:
Mr Arthur Luk for Crown Prosecutor
Tung Chi Yin-Appellant in person/present