DCCC1058/2012 HKSAR v. KONG CHO MAN, JOE - LawHero
DCCC1058/2012
HKSAR v. KONG CHO MAN, JOE
區域法院（刑事）HH Judge Dufton11/4/2013
DCCC1058/2012
A A
B B
DCCC 1058/2012
C IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE C
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
D CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1058 OF 2012 D
____________
E HKSAR E
v
F F
KONG Cho-man, Joe
G ____________ G
H Before : HH Judge Dufton H
Date : 12 April 2013
I Present: Miss Amanda Whitfort, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR I
Mr Ronny Leung, instructed by S.H. Chou & Co assigned by
J the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant J
Offences: (1) Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)
K (2) Failure to produce proof of identity on demand K
(未能在規定下出示身分證明文件)
L L
REASONS FOR VERDICT
M M
N 1. The defendant stands trial on a single count of trafficking in N
17.75 grammes of a solid containing 14.13 grammes of ketamine; 0.23
O O
gramme of a powder containing 0.16 gramme of ketamine; and 0.17
P gramme of a solid containing 0.14 gramme of cocaine, contrary to section P
4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134. The defendant pleads
Q Q
not guilty to trafficking but guilty to possession of the dangerous drugs.
R The defendant has also pleaded guilty to a charge of failure to produce R
proof of identity on demand, contrary to section 17C(3) of the
S S
Immigration Ordinance, Chapter 115.
T T
U U
V V
2
A A
B B
2. In summary at approximately 9.18 a.m. on the 17 August last
C year the police saw the defendant outside No. 60 Lok Shan Road in Hung C
Hom standing by private car GG 192. The defendant was the registered
D D
owner of the private car. The police suspecting the defendant was in
E possession of dangerous drugs approached and conducted a body search. E
PC 6982 found from a pocket of the defendant’s trousers a purple zip up
F F
holder, inside which was a re-sealable plastic bag and a piece of white
G paper, both found on examination to contain ketamine. On a search of G
the car two re-sealable plastic bags were found under the carpet of the
H H
driver’s seat, one containing ketamine and the other cocaine. At the
I police station the defendant was found in possession of HK$26,140 and I
RMB100.
J J
K 3. Trafficking in relation to dangerous drugs includes, “…or K
otherwise dealing in or with the dangerous drug, or possessing the
L L
dangerous drug for the purpose of trafficking” (see the definition of
M trafficking in section 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance). The M
prosecution case is that on the evidence the only inference to draw is that
N N
the defendant possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking. The
O defendant by his plea says that the drugs were for his own consumption O
and not for trafficking.
P P
Q Evidence Q
Prosecution Evidence
R R
S 4. The prosecution case has largely been admitted pursuant to S
section 65C of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Chapter 221
T T
(exhibits P17 & P17A), including the finding of the ketamine and cocaine
U U
V V
3
A A
B B
from the defendant’s trouser pocket and the ketamine and cocaine in the
C car (see paragraphs 4 and 10); the defendant was the registered owner of C
private car GG 192 (see paragraph 9); the chain of exhibits relating to the
D D
drugs (see paragraphs 16 & 17 as read with the Government Chemist
E Certificate, exhibit P2); and the seizing of HK$26,140 and RMB100 from E
the defendant (see paragraph 15).
F F
G 5. The prosecution called two live witnesses PC 6982 (PW1), the G
arresting officer, who gave evidence as to the reason why he intercepted
H H
the defendant; and DSIP Leung Kin Man (PW6), who gave expert
I evidence as to the street value of ketamine. I
J J
6. PC 6982 testified that he saw the defendant looking to the left and
K the right whilst talking to two males. When the defendant noticed the K
presence of the police he became a bit anxious. PC 6982 therefore
L L
thought the defendant was suspicious and decided to approach him for
M enquiry. M
N N
7. In cross-examination PC 6982 agreed the defendant told him the
O two males were his friends and that they had just happened to meet there. O
PC 6982 confirmed that no drugs were found on either of these two men.
P P
PC 6982 further agreed that there was a possibility that the defendant
Q when looking around was looking at the oncoming traffic and also Q
looking at his two friends.
R R
S 8. DSIP Leung Kin Man explained how information was gathered S
as to the street value of ketamine. I was satisfied he was able to give
T T
expert evidence as to street value. DSIP Leung said in August last year
U U
V V
4
A A
B B
the price of ketamine was $126 per gramme and therefore the street value
C of the ketamine seized was $2,265. This was calculated based on seizures C
of 5 grammes or less.
D D
E 9. DSIP Leung further explained that normally speaking the drugs E
would be cheaper if bought in larger quantities. Of the three packets of
F F
ketamine seized DSIP Leung said the price of the packet of ketamine
G found in the car and containing 13.47 grammes would be cheaper than G
$126 per gramme but not significantly cheaper. The price of the other
H H
two packets of ketamine would be based on $126 per gramme.
I I
Defence evidence
J J
K 10. The defendant elected not to give evidence and called no K
witnesses. No adverse inference is drawn against the defendant for
L L
remaining silent. That is his right. This proves nothing one way or the
M other. The prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. M
This does however mean there is no evidence from the defendant to
N N
undermine, contradict, or explain the evidence led by the prosecution.
O O
11. I have carefully considered all the evidence and the submissions
P P
made by Miss Whitfort and Mr Leung. In reaching my verdict I remind
Q myself of the burden and standard of proof and that the burden is on the Q
prosecution throughout. The defendant has to prove nothing.
R R
S 12. The only issue to be determined is whether the ketamine and S
cocaine were for trafficking or may have been for the defendant’s own
T T
consumption.
U U
V V
5
A A
B B
Drug addiction
C C
13. There is no evidence before the court as to whether or not the
D D
defendant was a drug addict at the time of arrest. There can be no doubt
E in the past the defendant has been a drug addict. This is clearly E
evidenced by the fact the defendant has five previous convictions for
F F
possession of dangerous drugs between 2001 and 2007 and was sentenced
G to treatment in a drug addiction treatment centre in 2002 and 2003 (see G
paragraph 22 of the admitted facts, exhibit P17).
H H
I 14. Mr Leung submits that by reason of these convictions and I
attendance at a drug addiction treatment centre the defendant may still
J J
have been a drug addict at the time of his arrest. The fact of previous
K convictions, the last of which was 5 years before the defendant’s arrest K
and his last attendance at a drug addiction treatment centre was in 2003,
L L
almost 9 years before arrest, do not in my view support the assertion the
M defendant may still have been an addict at the time of his arrest. The fact M
remains however there is no evidence before the court as to whether or
N N
not the defendant was a drug addict at the time of arrest.
O O
Trafficking
P P
Q 15. There being no direct evidence of actual trafficking I have Q
examined the circumstances surrounding the arrest of the defendant to
R R
determine whether the only inference to draw is that the defendant was
S dealing in or with the dangerous drug, or possessing the dangerous drug S
for the purpose of trafficking.
T T
U U
V V
6
A A
B B
16. The prosecution submit that taking into account the quantity of
C drugs possessed by the defendant; that there were two different drugs and C
that a substantial sum of money was found on the defendant the only
D D
inference to draw is that the drugs were for trafficking. The prosecution
E also submit relying on the decision in HKSAR v Ho Ka Kei CACC E
378/2009 the court can take into account the demeanour of the defendant
F F
immediately prior to arrest.
G G
17. I am satisfied in the circumstances of this case that the
H H
observations of PC 6982 leading to the arrest of the defendant do not
I assist in determining whether the only inference to draw is that the drugs I
were possessed for trafficking. Nor do I find any assistance in the
J J
evidence of the street value of the drugs. I will now specifically address
K the evidence as to the quantity of the drugs and the finding of the cash. K
L L
Quantity of drugs
M M
18. The defendant was found in possession of 14.29 grammes of
N N
ketamine and 0.14 gramme of cocaine. Whilst the defendant was not
O found in possession of the drugs in the early hours of the morning I O
nevertheless remind myself of that said by the Court of Final Appeal in
P P
Chan Chuen Ho v HKSAR [1999] 2 HKCFAR 198 at 203 that: “It is not to
Q be thought that any person with any amount of drugs found in the streets in the early Q
hours of the morning must be guilty of trafficking.”
R R
S 19. Relying on Chan Chuen Ho Mr Leung submits that this quantity S
is not so large as to be incompatible with possession for own use.
T T
Whether the circumstantial evidence, including the quantity of drugs, is
U U
V V
7
A A
B B
sufficient to establish an irresistible inference of trafficking depends on
C the facts of the case (see for example HKSAR v Lee Chun Tat CACC C
271/2005 and on appeal to the Court of Final Appeal in FAMC 52/2006).
D D
E 20. The courts may take judicial notice of the average consumption E
of drug addicts or rely on expert evidence as to drug usage. Based on
F F
extensive up-to-date data on the use of ketamine it is accepted that
G recreational doses range from 10-250 mg when taken nasally (see G
Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 at paragraph
H H
92 as applied in HKSAR v Chau Leong Wa CACC 51/2012). The total
I quantity of ketamine being 14.29 grammes the defendant had in his I
possession at least 57 doses.
J J
K 21. Mr Leung submits the number of doses would be less for K
experienced users. In Hii Siew Cheng it was said that experienced users
L L
having developed tolerance for ketamine may consume up to a gramme
M or more during the course of a single evening (see paragraph 64). This M
may well be, however, whilst emphasising no adverse inference is drawn
N N
from the defendant remaining silent, as noted earlier there is no evidence
O before the court as to whether or not the defendant was a drug addict at O
the time of arrest and if so how much drugs he was consuming.
P P
Q Possession of $26,140 Q
R R
22. The defendant was found in possession of $26,140. I direct
S myself before taking this evidence into account I must be satisfied that S
there is no realistic possibility of the money being in the defendant’s
T T
possession for reasons other than drug dealing (see for example R v Grant
U U
V V
8
A A
B B
[1996] 1 Cr. App R 73 as applied in HKSAR v Law Chi Hung CACC
C 341/2004 and on appeal to the Court of Final Appeal in FAMC 73/2005). C
D D
23. The sum of money was not an insignificant sum of money
E possessed by the defendant at the same time as he possessed a substantial E
quantity of ketamine and a small quantity of cocaine. I am satisfied the
F F
possession of this sum of money together with the drugs is both relevant
G and probative to the issue of whether the defendant possessed the drugs G
for the purpose of trafficking. In considering this evidence I take into
H H
account the submission of Mr Leung that the defendant was not seen to
I pass any drugs or receive any money from the two males he was talking I
to and no drugs were found on these two males.
J J
K Verdict K
L L
24. Mr Leung relying on Chan Chuen Ho submits that the
M circumstantial evidence is insufficient to establish an irresistible inference M
of trafficking. In considering this submission I note that in Lee Chun Tat,
N N
a case where the defendant remained silent at the time of arrest and
O elected not to give evidence, a similar submission was made and rejected O
by the majority of the Court of Appeal, which the Court of Final Appeal
P P
said was plainly correct.
Q Q
25. I remind myself that when drawing inferences from the evidence
R R
the inference must be a compelling one and the only one that no
S reasonable man could fail to draw from the direct facts proved. Having S
carefully considered all the evidence and taking into account, inter alia,
T T
that:
U U
V V
9
A A
B B
(i) the quantity was equivalent to at least 57 doses;
C (ii) the ketamine was contained in three different quantities and C
found both in a pocket of the defendant’s trousers and
D D
concealed under the carpet at the driver’s seat together with
E a packet of cocaine; and E
(iii) the defendant had with him a substantial amount of cash;
F F
G I find I am satisfied so I am sure the only inference to draw is that the G
defendant possessed the dangerous drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
H H
I 26. In reaching my verdict I have carefully considered everything I
said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Leung both individually and
J J
collectively, including that trafficking cannot be easily inferred from the
K number of packets of drugs and their packaging; no re-sealable plastic K
bags or scales were found in either the defendant’s car or in his home (see
L L
paragraph 14 of the admitted facts, exhibit P17); and the defendant was
M not seen leaving his home in the early hours of the morning as in Chan M
Chuen Ho. Nothing said by Mr Leung causes me to doubt the only
N N
inference to draw is that defendant possessed the dangerous drugs for the
O purpose of trafficking. O
P P
27. I am satisfied so I am sure there are no material and significant
Q discrepancies, improbabilities or omissions in the evidence, which cause Q
me to doubt the findings I have made. I am satisfied so I am sure the
R R
prosecution have proved all the elements of the charge beyond reasonable
S doubt. The defendant is convicted as charged. S
T T
(D. J. DUFTON)
District Judge
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 1058/2012
C IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE C
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
D CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1058 OF 2012 D
____________
E HKSAR E
v
F F
KONG Cho-man, Joe
G ____________ G
H Before : HH Judge Dufton H
Date : 12 April 2013
I Present: Miss Amanda Whitfort, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR I
Mr Ronny Leung, instructed by S.H. Chou & Co assigned by
J the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant J
Offences: (1) Trafficking in a dangerous drug (販運危險藥物)
K (2) Failure to produce proof of identity on demand K
(未能在規定下出示身分證明文件)
L L
REASONS FOR VERDICT
M M
N 1. The defendant stands trial on a single count of trafficking in N
17.75 grammes of a solid containing 14.13 grammes of ketamine; 0.23
O O
gramme of a powder containing 0.16 gramme of ketamine; and 0.17
P gramme of a solid containing 0.14 gramme of cocaine, contrary to section P
4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Chapter 134. The defendant pleads
Q Q
not guilty to trafficking but guilty to possession of the dangerous drugs.
R The defendant has also pleaded guilty to a charge of failure to produce R
proof of identity on demand, contrary to section 17C(3) of the
S S
Immigration Ordinance, Chapter 115.
T T
U U
V V
2
A A
B B
2. In summary at approximately 9.18 a.m. on the 17 August last
C year the police saw the defendant outside No. 60 Lok Shan Road in Hung C
Hom standing by private car GG 192. The defendant was the registered
D D
owner of the private car. The police suspecting the defendant was in
E possession of dangerous drugs approached and conducted a body search. E
PC 6982 found from a pocket of the defendant’s trousers a purple zip up
F F
holder, inside which was a re-sealable plastic bag and a piece of white
G paper, both found on examination to contain ketamine. On a search of G
the car two re-sealable plastic bags were found under the carpet of the
H H
driver’s seat, one containing ketamine and the other cocaine. At the
I police station the defendant was found in possession of HK$26,140 and I
RMB100.
J J
K 3. Trafficking in relation to dangerous drugs includes, “…or K
otherwise dealing in or with the dangerous drug, or possessing the
L L
dangerous drug for the purpose of trafficking” (see the definition of
M trafficking in section 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance). The M
prosecution case is that on the evidence the only inference to draw is that
N N
the defendant possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking. The
O defendant by his plea says that the drugs were for his own consumption O
and not for trafficking.
P P
Q Evidence Q
Prosecution Evidence
R R
S 4. The prosecution case has largely been admitted pursuant to S
section 65C of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Chapter 221
T T
(exhibits P17 & P17A), including the finding of the ketamine and cocaine
U U
V V
3
A A
B B
from the defendant’s trouser pocket and the ketamine and cocaine in the
C car (see paragraphs 4 and 10); the defendant was the registered owner of C
private car GG 192 (see paragraph 9); the chain of exhibits relating to the
D D
drugs (see paragraphs 16 & 17 as read with the Government Chemist
E Certificate, exhibit P2); and the seizing of HK$26,140 and RMB100 from E
the defendant (see paragraph 15).
F F
G 5. The prosecution called two live witnesses PC 6982 (PW1), the G
arresting officer, who gave evidence as to the reason why he intercepted
H H
the defendant; and DSIP Leung Kin Man (PW6), who gave expert
I evidence as to the street value of ketamine. I
J J
6. PC 6982 testified that he saw the defendant looking to the left and
K the right whilst talking to two males. When the defendant noticed the K
presence of the police he became a bit anxious. PC 6982 therefore
L L
thought the defendant was suspicious and decided to approach him for
M enquiry. M
N N
7. In cross-examination PC 6982 agreed the defendant told him the
O two males were his friends and that they had just happened to meet there. O
PC 6982 confirmed that no drugs were found on either of these two men.
P P
PC 6982 further agreed that there was a possibility that the defendant
Q when looking around was looking at the oncoming traffic and also Q
looking at his two friends.
R R
S 8. DSIP Leung Kin Man explained how information was gathered S
as to the street value of ketamine. I was satisfied he was able to give
T T
expert evidence as to street value. DSIP Leung said in August last year
U U
V V
4
A A
B B
the price of ketamine was $126 per gramme and therefore the street value
C of the ketamine seized was $2,265. This was calculated based on seizures C
of 5 grammes or less.
D D
E 9. DSIP Leung further explained that normally speaking the drugs E
would be cheaper if bought in larger quantities. Of the three packets of
F F
ketamine seized DSIP Leung said the price of the packet of ketamine
G found in the car and containing 13.47 grammes would be cheaper than G
$126 per gramme but not significantly cheaper. The price of the other
H H
two packets of ketamine would be based on $126 per gramme.
I I
Defence evidence
J J
K 10. The defendant elected not to give evidence and called no K
witnesses. No adverse inference is drawn against the defendant for
L L
remaining silent. That is his right. This proves nothing one way or the
M other. The prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. M
This does however mean there is no evidence from the defendant to
N N
undermine, contradict, or explain the evidence led by the prosecution.
O O
11. I have carefully considered all the evidence and the submissions
P P
made by Miss Whitfort and Mr Leung. In reaching my verdict I remind
Q myself of the burden and standard of proof and that the burden is on the Q
prosecution throughout. The defendant has to prove nothing.
R R
S 12. The only issue to be determined is whether the ketamine and S
cocaine were for trafficking or may have been for the defendant’s own
T T
consumption.
U U
V V
5
A A
B B
Drug addiction
C C
13. There is no evidence before the court as to whether or not the
D D
defendant was a drug addict at the time of arrest. There can be no doubt
E in the past the defendant has been a drug addict. This is clearly E
evidenced by the fact the defendant has five previous convictions for
F F
possession of dangerous drugs between 2001 and 2007 and was sentenced
G to treatment in a drug addiction treatment centre in 2002 and 2003 (see G
paragraph 22 of the admitted facts, exhibit P17).
H H
I 14. Mr Leung submits that by reason of these convictions and I
attendance at a drug addiction treatment centre the defendant may still
J J
have been a drug addict at the time of his arrest. The fact of previous
K convictions, the last of which was 5 years before the defendant’s arrest K
and his last attendance at a drug addiction treatment centre was in 2003,
L L
almost 9 years before arrest, do not in my view support the assertion the
M defendant may still have been an addict at the time of his arrest. The fact M
remains however there is no evidence before the court as to whether or
N N
not the defendant was a drug addict at the time of arrest.
O O
Trafficking
P P
Q 15. There being no direct evidence of actual trafficking I have Q
examined the circumstances surrounding the arrest of the defendant to
R R
determine whether the only inference to draw is that the defendant was
S dealing in or with the dangerous drug, or possessing the dangerous drug S
for the purpose of trafficking.
T T
U U
V V
6
A A
B B
16. The prosecution submit that taking into account the quantity of
C drugs possessed by the defendant; that there were two different drugs and C
that a substantial sum of money was found on the defendant the only
D D
inference to draw is that the drugs were for trafficking. The prosecution
E also submit relying on the decision in HKSAR v Ho Ka Kei CACC E
378/2009 the court can take into account the demeanour of the defendant
F F
immediately prior to arrest.
G G
17. I am satisfied in the circumstances of this case that the
H H
observations of PC 6982 leading to the arrest of the defendant do not
I assist in determining whether the only inference to draw is that the drugs I
were possessed for trafficking. Nor do I find any assistance in the
J J
evidence of the street value of the drugs. I will now specifically address
K the evidence as to the quantity of the drugs and the finding of the cash. K
L L
Quantity of drugs
M M
18. The defendant was found in possession of 14.29 grammes of
N N
ketamine and 0.14 gramme of cocaine. Whilst the defendant was not
O found in possession of the drugs in the early hours of the morning I O
nevertheless remind myself of that said by the Court of Final Appeal in
P P
Chan Chuen Ho v HKSAR [1999] 2 HKCFAR 198 at 203 that: “It is not to
Q be thought that any person with any amount of drugs found in the streets in the early Q
hours of the morning must be guilty of trafficking.”
R R
S 19. Relying on Chan Chuen Ho Mr Leung submits that this quantity S
is not so large as to be incompatible with possession for own use.
T T
Whether the circumstantial evidence, including the quantity of drugs, is
U U
V V
7
A A
B B
sufficient to establish an irresistible inference of trafficking depends on
C the facts of the case (see for example HKSAR v Lee Chun Tat CACC C
271/2005 and on appeal to the Court of Final Appeal in FAMC 52/2006).
D D
E 20. The courts may take judicial notice of the average consumption E
of drug addicts or rely on expert evidence as to drug usage. Based on
F F
extensive up-to-date data on the use of ketamine it is accepted that
G recreational doses range from 10-250 mg when taken nasally (see G
Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 at paragraph
H H
92 as applied in HKSAR v Chau Leong Wa CACC 51/2012). The total
I quantity of ketamine being 14.29 grammes the defendant had in his I
possession at least 57 doses.
J J
K 21. Mr Leung submits the number of doses would be less for K
experienced users. In Hii Siew Cheng it was said that experienced users
L L
having developed tolerance for ketamine may consume up to a gramme
M or more during the course of a single evening (see paragraph 64). This M
may well be, however, whilst emphasising no adverse inference is drawn
N N
from the defendant remaining silent, as noted earlier there is no evidence
O before the court as to whether or not the defendant was a drug addict at O
the time of arrest and if so how much drugs he was consuming.
P P
Q Possession of $26,140 Q
R R
22. The defendant was found in possession of $26,140. I direct
S myself before taking this evidence into account I must be satisfied that S
there is no realistic possibility of the money being in the defendant’s
T T
possession for reasons other than drug dealing (see for example R v Grant
U U
V V
8
A A
B B
[1996] 1 Cr. App R 73 as applied in HKSAR v Law Chi Hung CACC
C 341/2004 and on appeal to the Court of Final Appeal in FAMC 73/2005). C
D D
23. The sum of money was not an insignificant sum of money
E possessed by the defendant at the same time as he possessed a substantial E
quantity of ketamine and a small quantity of cocaine. I am satisfied the
F F
possession of this sum of money together with the drugs is both relevant
G and probative to the issue of whether the defendant possessed the drugs G
for the purpose of trafficking. In considering this evidence I take into
H H
account the submission of Mr Leung that the defendant was not seen to
I pass any drugs or receive any money from the two males he was talking I
to and no drugs were found on these two males.
J J
K Verdict K
L L
24. Mr Leung relying on Chan Chuen Ho submits that the
M circumstantial evidence is insufficient to establish an irresistible inference M
of trafficking. In considering this submission I note that in Lee Chun Tat,
N N
a case where the defendant remained silent at the time of arrest and
O elected not to give evidence, a similar submission was made and rejected O
by the majority of the Court of Appeal, which the Court of Final Appeal
P P
said was plainly correct.
Q Q
25. I remind myself that when drawing inferences from the evidence
R R
the inference must be a compelling one and the only one that no
S reasonable man could fail to draw from the direct facts proved. Having S
carefully considered all the evidence and taking into account, inter alia,
T T
that:
U U
V V
9
A A
B B
(i) the quantity was equivalent to at least 57 doses;
C (ii) the ketamine was contained in three different quantities and C
found both in a pocket of the defendant’s trousers and
D D
concealed under the carpet at the driver’s seat together with
E a packet of cocaine; and E
(iii) the defendant had with him a substantial amount of cash;
F F
G I find I am satisfied so I am sure the only inference to draw is that the G
defendant possessed the dangerous drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
H H
I 26. In reaching my verdict I have carefully considered everything I
said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Leung both individually and
J J
collectively, including that trafficking cannot be easily inferred from the
K number of packets of drugs and their packaging; no re-sealable plastic K
bags or scales were found in either the defendant’s car or in his home (see
L L
paragraph 14 of the admitted facts, exhibit P17); and the defendant was
M not seen leaving his home in the early hours of the morning as in Chan M
Chuen Ho. Nothing said by Mr Leung causes me to doubt the only
N N
inference to draw is that defendant possessed the dangerous drugs for the
O purpose of trafficking. O
P P
27. I am satisfied so I am sure there are no material and significant
Q discrepancies, improbabilities or omissions in the evidence, which cause Q
me to doubt the findings I have made. I am satisfied so I am sure the
R R
prosecution have proved all the elements of the charge beyond reasonable
S doubt. The defendant is convicted as charged. S
T T
(D. J. DUFTON)
District Judge
U U
V V