A A
B B
DCCC 886/2024
C [2025] HKDC 1551 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 886 OF 2024
F F
G ----------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I NG CHI WAI I
-----------------------------------
J J
K Before: His Honour Judge Tam K
Date: 10 September 2025
L L
Present: Mr Davies Oliver Howell, counsel-on-fiat, for HKSAR
M Mr Boyton David and Ms Wong Gretel Chauntae, instructed M
by T K Tsui & Co, for the defendant
N N
Offences: [1] Trafficking in a dangerous drug（販運危險藥物）
O O
[2] Doing an act or a series of acts tending and intended to
P
pervert the course of public justice（作出一項或一連串傾 P
向並意圖妨礙司法公正的作為）
Q Q
R ----------------------------------------- R
REASONS FOR VERDICT
S S
-----------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The defendant faces a Charge Sheet consisting of two charges
C as follows. C
D D
2. Charge 1 is Trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to
E section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. E
Particulars are that he, on 9 March 2024, at the carpark entrance on Ground
F F
Floor, Harbour Centre Tower 2, No 8 Hok Cheung Street, Hung Hom,
G Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, G
namely 10.60 grammes of a solid containing 8.71 grammes of cocaine.
H H
I 3. Charge 2 is Doing an act or a series of acts tending and I
intended to pervert the course of public justice, contrary to Common Law
J J
and punishable under section 101(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance,
K Cap 221. K
L L
4. The defendant pleaded not guilty to Charge 1 but guilty to the
M alternative offence of Possession of a dangerous drug. The prosecution did M
not accept the guilty plea resulting in a trial on the original charge.
N N
O 5. The defendant pleaded guilty to Charge 2. Sentencing on O
Charge 2 was adjourned until the end of trial relating to Charge 1.
P P
Q Prosecution case Q
R R
6. At about half-past 10 in the evening on the day in question,
S the defendant was acting furtively at the car park on Ground Floor of a S
building. Plainclothes police officers stopped and searched him. During
T T
the search, defendant claimed he did not have his HKID card on him. The
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
defendant attempted to walk away but was stopped. The defendant
C continued to move around but was pressed down. C
D D
7. When the defendant was down, he was seen chewing
E something. He was repeatedly asked to spit it out. E
F F
8. Eventually, the defendant spat out a bloodstained transparent
G bag containing 8.71 grammes of cocaine narcotic in powder form. He said G
he was frightened and wanted to swallow the packet, which had been in his
H H
clothes, but he hurt himself.
I I
9. The defendant was arrested and under caution, he said he
J J
bought the cocaine for his own consumption.
K K
10. Back at the station, two mobile phones were found on the
L L
defendant.
M M
11. In a cautioned VRI taken in the evening of the next day, the
N N
defendant said:
O O
(a) He was a driver earning $25,000 per month;
P P
Q (b) Inside the transparent bag was powder cocaine; Q
R R
(c) He became frightened when he was intercepted so he
S took the transparent bag from this right jacket pocket S
and placed it in his mouth; and
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
(d) The transparent bag was chewed broken and
C bloodstained. C
D D
12. Police drug expert estimated that the retail value of the
E cocaine in question would be $9,635 if sold in quantities of 5 grammes or E
less.
F F
G Defence case G
H H
13. Defence case is the defendant possessed the drug for self-
I consumption only. I
J J
Issue in the case
K K
14. The sole issue is whether on the whole of the evidence, the
L L
court can draw the only reasonable and irresistible inference that the
M defendant possessed the drug for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. M
N N
Procedural history
O O
15. Prosecution case consisted almost entirely of Admitted Facts
P P
Exh P6, the salient features of which have been reproduced in the
Q “Prosecution case” section above. Q
R R
16. Prosecution called only one witness PW1 PC26723, the
S arresting officer. S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
17. After the close of the prosecution case, the defence made half-
C time submissions on the basis that there was no evidence of trafficking C
especially in a case where the defendant is a person of clear record.
D D
Prosecution replied that there was nothing found at his home to show the
E defendant was a drug user; that the authorities show that the large quantity E
of drug in this case would last a regular cocaine user for more than one
F F
month. Upon consideration of submissions from both sides and upon
G review of the relevant evidence, I ruled there is a prima-facie case of G
trafficking in relation to Charge 1.
H H
I 18. Defendant elected to give evidence but called no other I
witnesses. I assess his evidence with the same objective standard as that I
J J
used when assessing prosecution evidence but bearing always in mind that
K the prosecution bears the burden of proof. K
L L
19. After close of all evidence, parties made oral submissions. I
M have duly considered them but will not repeat them here. M
N N
Summary of prosecution evidence
O O
PW1 PC26723
P P
Q 20. PW1 repeated the course of interception and arrest which has Q
largely been agreed under the Admitted Facts exhibit P6.
R R
S 21. In the witness box, PW1 saw the relevant CCTV footages S
exhibit P4 from 3 angles and identified the parties present in the carpark at
T T
the material time.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
C 22. During cross-examination, PW1 agreed that the defendant C
waved at the security guard while coming out of the building and leaving
D D
the carpark before re-entering. PW1 agreed that when stopped by the
E police at the carpark, the defendant pointed in the direction of the white E
stationary car while explaining where he was going.
F F
G 23. However, PW1 said the defendant did not explain he worked G
in the building; nor did PW1 ask the defendant about it.
H H
I 24. PW1 agreed there was no cash or keys on the defendant. I
There also came a time when someone brought the defendant’s HKID card
J J
to him in Hung Hom Police Station.
K K
25. PW1 agreed it was the defendant’s mother who went over to
L L
open the defendant’s home door for the purpose of a house search.
M M
Summary of defence evidence
N N
O Defendant O
P P
26. Defendant worked and is still working at Phoenix Company
Q at Unit 04B of 12/F of Harbour Centre Tower 2. His role was as a driver Q
for the boss. He earned $25,000 per month. On the night in question, he
R R
left the building through the carpark exit and waved at the security guard.
S He went out temporarily to buy dangerous drug to take back to office to S
consume.
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
27. On his way back, he was intercepted by police. He pointed at
C the direction of the white car (the direction of the building entrance). He C
told the police he wanted to go back to office.
D D
E 28. His HKID card, his home keys, his wallet containing cash E
were all in office.
F F
G 29. He paid $5,000 for the half ounce (roughly 14 grammes) of G
dangerous drug. Only 10 odd grammes were found. It was possible he had
H H
swallowed the balance.
I I
30. It was cheaper to buy half ounce. If he bought 1 gramme, it
J J
would be $800. There would be a discount if one bought in large quantity.
K K
31. He consumed the drug in a cigarette roll. He would place
L L
0.17-0.20 gramme into each cigarette by using a little weight which he hid
M on top of a cabinet in the office. He consumed 3 such cigarettes daily ie M
roughly 0.5-0.6 gramme daily. Half ounce or 14 grammes would last him
N N
almost a month.
O O
32. He would consume drug in office before his boss came and he
P P
would also take some after work (in the office).
Q Q
33. As regards his HKID card, it was a colleague who brought it
R R
to Hung Hom Police Station after he had made an outgoing call.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
34. His mother did not live with him. He made a call to his mother
C who then went over to his home to open the door for the police with spare C
key(s).
D D
E 35. He is married. His wife is a saleslady and earned $22,000 per E
month. They have one child. Wife pays for the child’s tuition and private
F F
tuition fees.
G G
36. From his salary, he pays $10,000 for his other expenses
H H
including the utilities.
I I
37. Under cross-examination, the defendant said that he had been
J J
taking cocaine for one year to one year and a half. He bought the drug
K from a designated place in a park less than 100 metres from his office. The K
defendant felt it was less risky to buy more in one go and kept the unused
L L
portion in his office. His wife did not know he took drug.
M M
38. Although he took one dose of cocaine in the morning in office,
N N
he did not drive when high on cocaine. He took his second cigarette after
O work at about 9:30 pm after his boss had left. O
P P
39. His third cigarette was also taken after work. He went home
Q immediately thereafter by bus. Q
R R
40. He has a locker in the office. Only the boss and no one else
S works there. It is a currency exchange company: the Hung Hom office S
occupying 1,000 odd square feet is the boss’s private office; the other office
T T
staffed by colleagues is in Sheung Wan Centre.
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
C 41. The colleague who brought his HKID card to Hung Hom C
Police Station was from Sheung Wan Centre office. The defendant gave
D D
him/her the passcode for entering the Hung Hom office.
E E
42. When the defendant made the outgoing call, he made it to the
F F
boss. The boss then arranged for someone to bring the HKID card to the
G defendant. G
H H
43. He has stopped taking drug since the arrest. He took drug
I during that time because he was having a bad mood caused by marital I
relationship.
J J
K 44. The first time he bought from the seller Ah Keung he only K
bought 2 grammes costing about $1,600. Ah Keung did not keep the drug
L L
with him. He told a subordinate to come down from a slope to deliver the
M drug to the defendant. M
N N
My consideration
O O
45. I reminded myself the burden of proof lies entirely on the
P P
prosecution throughout the standard being beyond a reasonable doubt.
Q Defence does not need to prove anything least so the defendant’s innocence. Q
R R
1
46. I reminded myself the defendant has no criminal record . That
S means two things. First, compared with a person with a criminal record, S
T 1 T
However, this is watered down somewhat because he admitted to possession of the dangerous drug
for self-consumption and he has pleaded guilty before me to Charge 2 of Perverting the course of
justice.
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
any statements made in or out of court by the defendant is more likely to
C be true. Second, compared with the same person, the defendant is less C
likely to commit a criminal offence.
D D
E 47. I first assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence E
given by the witnesses.
F F
G PW1 PC26723 G
H H
48. PW1’s evidence was unremarkable save and except it laid the
I foundation for the defendant’s evidence which was to follow. I
J J
49. Defence did not challenge PW1’s evidence.
K K
50. Having considered his evidence, save and except one aspect,
L L
I found the part of his evidence that was not already contained in the
M Admitted Facts credible and reliable. I give that evidence full weight. M
N N
51. That one aspect that I have some reasonable doubts on was
O PW1’s evidence that the defendant did not explain he worked in the O
building nor did PW1 ask about it. This piece of evidence does not sit well
P P
with PW1’s evidence that the defendant pointed towards the direction of
Q the white stationary car (as can be seen from the CCTV footage) explaining Q
where he was going.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
Defendant
C C
52. What the defendant said in evidence was consistent with the
D D
CCTV footage. It seems that he had some permanent connection with the
E building of which the carpark formed part. The fact that he was not E
carrying any personal effects save and except his two mobile phones
F F
supported his claim that he was returning to his office after being
G temporarily out. The fact that he was carrying one plastic bag containing G
dangerous drug rather than many smaller packets supported his claim that
H H
he was not trafficking.
I I
53. What the defendant said in evidence was consistent with what
J J
he said under caution at the scene and during a cautioned VRI conducted
K on the next day. K
L L
54. From the way in which the defendant expressed himself, I
M could see that he was not an articulate person. His job as a driver certainly M
did not require him to do a lot of talking. There was a minor unclear feature
N N
in his evidence ie whether he talked on the phone with a colleague directly
O during which he passed on the office door passcode to him/her. However, O
this minor aspect did not detract me from finding generally that the
P P
defendant’s evidence was credible and reliable.
Q Q
Detailed analysis of the evidence
R R
S 55. Prosecution’s strongest point was their reliance on the S
“authorities” which seemed to suggest that the daily consumption rate of a
T T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
cocaine addict was 0.2 gramme of the drug. No case name was mentioned
C by the prosecution. C
D D
56. I can find at least one Court of Appeal authority on the subject
E which is HKSAR v Cheung Ho Kit CACC 242/2018 [2019] HKCA 557, E
which recorded the fact that at trial the parties there agreed the expert
F F
opinion that the average daily consumption of cocaine per addict was 0.2
G gramme. G
H H
57. In a first instance District Court case HKSAR v Fan Chi Ho
I DCCC 808/2018 [2020] HKDC 478, the expert evidence as to daily I
consumption rate of cocaine is summarized as follows:
J J
K “119. In summary the evidence of Dr Lau is that the daily K
consumption of cocaine is highly variable because the usage
pattern was irregular which was indicative of recreational use.
L Depending on the purity of the cocaine a typical chronic user L
would take between 25 to 50 mg per insufflation and would
M repeat the dose many times a day with a daily dose of 0.2 to 0.5 M
gm whereas a new user may stop after one or two insufflations
and would not use cocaine regularly. A heavy user may binge
N on cocaine up to 2-3 gm in repeated doses.” N
O O
58. In the present case, no expert evidence was called by the
P
prosecution. P
Q Q
59. The evidence of the defendant was that he consumed about
R 0.5-0.6 gramme daily. This is at least on par with the daily consumption R
rate of the typical chronic user as opined by the expert in Fan Chi Ho.
S S
T 60. Besides, in this case, only 10.6 grammes solid (powder) T
containing 8.71 grammes of cocaine was ever recovered by the police. If
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
the defendant was to lie, he could easily say that he only bought 10
C grammes for self-use, and not 14 grammes as was his evidence. C
D D
61. I found what the defendant said in evidence generally
E including what he said about his daily consumption rate is possibly true. E
F F
62. This will necessarily mean that the prosecution has failed to
G prove their case of trafficking beyond a reasonable doubt. G
H H
Conclusion
I I
63. For the above reasons, I found the defendant not guilty of
J J
Charge 1 as charged but I found him guilty of the statutory alternative of
K possession of a dangerous drug. K
L L
M M
( Isaac Tam )
N N
District Judge
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 886/2024
C [2025] HKDC 1551 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 886 OF 2024
F F
G ----------------------------------- G
HKSAR
H H
v
I NG CHI WAI I
-----------------------------------
J J
K Before: His Honour Judge Tam K
Date: 10 September 2025
L L
Present: Mr Davies Oliver Howell, counsel-on-fiat, for HKSAR
M Mr Boyton David and Ms Wong Gretel Chauntae, instructed M
by T K Tsui & Co, for the defendant
N N
Offences: [1] Trafficking in a dangerous drug（販運危險藥物）
O O
[2] Doing an act or a series of acts tending and intended to
P
pervert the course of public justice（作出一項或一連串傾 P
向並意圖妨礙司法公正的作為）
Q Q
R ----------------------------------------- R
REASONS FOR VERDICT
S S
-----------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The defendant faces a Charge Sheet consisting of two charges
C as follows. C
D D
2. Charge 1 is Trafficking in a dangerous drug, contrary to
E section 4(1)(a) and (3) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134. E
Particulars are that he, on 9 March 2024, at the carpark entrance on Ground
F F
Floor, Harbour Centre Tower 2, No 8 Hok Cheung Street, Hung Hom,
G Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, G
namely 10.60 grammes of a solid containing 8.71 grammes of cocaine.
H H
I 3. Charge 2 is Doing an act or a series of acts tending and I
intended to pervert the course of public justice, contrary to Common Law
J J
and punishable under section 101(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance,
K Cap 221. K
L L
4. The defendant pleaded not guilty to Charge 1 but guilty to the
M alternative offence of Possession of a dangerous drug. The prosecution did M
not accept the guilty plea resulting in a trial on the original charge.
N N
O 5. The defendant pleaded guilty to Charge 2. Sentencing on O
Charge 2 was adjourned until the end of trial relating to Charge 1.
P P
Q Prosecution case Q
R R
6. At about half-past 10 in the evening on the day in question,
S the defendant was acting furtively at the car park on Ground Floor of a S
building. Plainclothes police officers stopped and searched him. During
T T
the search, defendant claimed he did not have his HKID card on him. The
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
defendant attempted to walk away but was stopped. The defendant
C continued to move around but was pressed down. C
D D
7. When the defendant was down, he was seen chewing
E something. He was repeatedly asked to spit it out. E
F F
8. Eventually, the defendant spat out a bloodstained transparent
G bag containing 8.71 grammes of cocaine narcotic in powder form. He said G
he was frightened and wanted to swallow the packet, which had been in his
H H
clothes, but he hurt himself.
I I
9. The defendant was arrested and under caution, he said he
J J
bought the cocaine for his own consumption.
K K
10. Back at the station, two mobile phones were found on the
L L
defendant.
M M
11. In a cautioned VRI taken in the evening of the next day, the
N N
defendant said:
O O
(a) He was a driver earning $25,000 per month;
P P
Q (b) Inside the transparent bag was powder cocaine; Q
R R
(c) He became frightened when he was intercepted so he
S took the transparent bag from this right jacket pocket S
and placed it in his mouth; and
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
(d) The transparent bag was chewed broken and
C bloodstained. C
D D
12. Police drug expert estimated that the retail value of the
E cocaine in question would be $9,635 if sold in quantities of 5 grammes or E
less.
F F
G Defence case G
H H
13. Defence case is the defendant possessed the drug for self-
I consumption only. I
J J
Issue in the case
K K
14. The sole issue is whether on the whole of the evidence, the
L L
court can draw the only reasonable and irresistible inference that the
M defendant possessed the drug for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. M
N N
Procedural history
O O
15. Prosecution case consisted almost entirely of Admitted Facts
P P
Exh P6, the salient features of which have been reproduced in the
Q “Prosecution case” section above. Q
R R
16. Prosecution called only one witness PW1 PC26723, the
S arresting officer. S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
17. After the close of the prosecution case, the defence made half-
C time submissions on the basis that there was no evidence of trafficking C
especially in a case where the defendant is a person of clear record.
D D
Prosecution replied that there was nothing found at his home to show the
E defendant was a drug user; that the authorities show that the large quantity E
of drug in this case would last a regular cocaine user for more than one
F F
month. Upon consideration of submissions from both sides and upon
G review of the relevant evidence, I ruled there is a prima-facie case of G
trafficking in relation to Charge 1.
H H
I 18. Defendant elected to give evidence but called no other I
witnesses. I assess his evidence with the same objective standard as that I
J J
used when assessing prosecution evidence but bearing always in mind that
K the prosecution bears the burden of proof. K
L L
19. After close of all evidence, parties made oral submissions. I
M have duly considered them but will not repeat them here. M
N N
Summary of prosecution evidence
O O
PW1 PC26723
P P
Q 20. PW1 repeated the course of interception and arrest which has Q
largely been agreed under the Admitted Facts exhibit P6.
R R
S 21. In the witness box, PW1 saw the relevant CCTV footages S
exhibit P4 from 3 angles and identified the parties present in the carpark at
T T
the material time.
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
C 22. During cross-examination, PW1 agreed that the defendant C
waved at the security guard while coming out of the building and leaving
D D
the carpark before re-entering. PW1 agreed that when stopped by the
E police at the carpark, the defendant pointed in the direction of the white E
stationary car while explaining where he was going.
F F
G 23. However, PW1 said the defendant did not explain he worked G
in the building; nor did PW1 ask the defendant about it.
H H
I 24. PW1 agreed there was no cash or keys on the defendant. I
There also came a time when someone brought the defendant’s HKID card
J J
to him in Hung Hom Police Station.
K K
25. PW1 agreed it was the defendant’s mother who went over to
L L
open the defendant’s home door for the purpose of a house search.
M M
Summary of defence evidence
N N
O Defendant O
P P
26. Defendant worked and is still working at Phoenix Company
Q at Unit 04B of 12/F of Harbour Centre Tower 2. His role was as a driver Q
for the boss. He earned $25,000 per month. On the night in question, he
R R
left the building through the carpark exit and waved at the security guard.
S He went out temporarily to buy dangerous drug to take back to office to S
consume.
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
27. On his way back, he was intercepted by police. He pointed at
C the direction of the white car (the direction of the building entrance). He C
told the police he wanted to go back to office.
D D
E 28. His HKID card, his home keys, his wallet containing cash E
were all in office.
F F
G 29. He paid $5,000 for the half ounce (roughly 14 grammes) of G
dangerous drug. Only 10 odd grammes were found. It was possible he had
H H
swallowed the balance.
I I
30. It was cheaper to buy half ounce. If he bought 1 gramme, it
J J
would be $800. There would be a discount if one bought in large quantity.
K K
31. He consumed the drug in a cigarette roll. He would place
L L
0.17-0.20 gramme into each cigarette by using a little weight which he hid
M on top of a cabinet in the office. He consumed 3 such cigarettes daily ie M
roughly 0.5-0.6 gramme daily. Half ounce or 14 grammes would last him
N N
almost a month.
O O
32. He would consume drug in office before his boss came and he
P P
would also take some after work (in the office).
Q Q
33. As regards his HKID card, it was a colleague who brought it
R R
to Hung Hom Police Station after he had made an outgoing call.
S S
T T
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
34. His mother did not live with him. He made a call to his mother
C who then went over to his home to open the door for the police with spare C
key(s).
D D
E 35. He is married. His wife is a saleslady and earned $22,000 per E
month. They have one child. Wife pays for the child’s tuition and private
F F
tuition fees.
G G
36. From his salary, he pays $10,000 for his other expenses
H H
including the utilities.
I I
37. Under cross-examination, the defendant said that he had been
J J
taking cocaine for one year to one year and a half. He bought the drug
K from a designated place in a park less than 100 metres from his office. The K
defendant felt it was less risky to buy more in one go and kept the unused
L L
portion in his office. His wife did not know he took drug.
M M
38. Although he took one dose of cocaine in the morning in office,
N N
he did not drive when high on cocaine. He took his second cigarette after
O work at about 9:30 pm after his boss had left. O
P P
39. His third cigarette was also taken after work. He went home
Q immediately thereafter by bus. Q
R R
40. He has a locker in the office. Only the boss and no one else
S works there. It is a currency exchange company: the Hung Hom office S
occupying 1,000 odd square feet is the boss’s private office; the other office
T T
staffed by colleagues is in Sheung Wan Centre.
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
C 41. The colleague who brought his HKID card to Hung Hom C
Police Station was from Sheung Wan Centre office. The defendant gave
D D
him/her the passcode for entering the Hung Hom office.
E E
42. When the defendant made the outgoing call, he made it to the
F F
boss. The boss then arranged for someone to bring the HKID card to the
G defendant. G
H H
43. He has stopped taking drug since the arrest. He took drug
I during that time because he was having a bad mood caused by marital I
relationship.
J J
K 44. The first time he bought from the seller Ah Keung he only K
bought 2 grammes costing about $1,600. Ah Keung did not keep the drug
L L
with him. He told a subordinate to come down from a slope to deliver the
M drug to the defendant. M
N N
My consideration
O O
45. I reminded myself the burden of proof lies entirely on the
P P
prosecution throughout the standard being beyond a reasonable doubt.
Q Defence does not need to prove anything least so the defendant’s innocence. Q
R R
1
46. I reminded myself the defendant has no criminal record . That
S means two things. First, compared with a person with a criminal record, S
T 1 T
However, this is watered down somewhat because he admitted to possession of the dangerous drug
for self-consumption and he has pleaded guilty before me to Charge 2 of Perverting the course of
justice.
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
any statements made in or out of court by the defendant is more likely to
C be true. Second, compared with the same person, the defendant is less C
likely to commit a criminal offence.
D D
E 47. I first assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence E
given by the witnesses.
F F
G PW1 PC26723 G
H H
48. PW1’s evidence was unremarkable save and except it laid the
I foundation for the defendant’s evidence which was to follow. I
J J
49. Defence did not challenge PW1’s evidence.
K K
50. Having considered his evidence, save and except one aspect,
L L
I found the part of his evidence that was not already contained in the
M Admitted Facts credible and reliable. I give that evidence full weight. M
N N
51. That one aspect that I have some reasonable doubts on was
O PW1’s evidence that the defendant did not explain he worked in the O
building nor did PW1 ask about it. This piece of evidence does not sit well
P P
with PW1’s evidence that the defendant pointed towards the direction of
Q the white stationary car (as can be seen from the CCTV footage) explaining Q
where he was going.
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 11 -
A A
B B
Defendant
C C
52. What the defendant said in evidence was consistent with the
D D
CCTV footage. It seems that he had some permanent connection with the
E building of which the carpark formed part. The fact that he was not E
carrying any personal effects save and except his two mobile phones
F F
supported his claim that he was returning to his office after being
G temporarily out. The fact that he was carrying one plastic bag containing G
dangerous drug rather than many smaller packets supported his claim that
H H
he was not trafficking.
I I
53. What the defendant said in evidence was consistent with what
J J
he said under caution at the scene and during a cautioned VRI conducted
K on the next day. K
L L
54. From the way in which the defendant expressed himself, I
M could see that he was not an articulate person. His job as a driver certainly M
did not require him to do a lot of talking. There was a minor unclear feature
N N
in his evidence ie whether he talked on the phone with a colleague directly
O during which he passed on the office door passcode to him/her. However, O
this minor aspect did not detract me from finding generally that the
P P
defendant’s evidence was credible and reliable.
Q Q
Detailed analysis of the evidence
R R
S 55. Prosecution’s strongest point was their reliance on the S
“authorities” which seemed to suggest that the daily consumption rate of a
T T
U U
V V
- 12 -
A A
B B
cocaine addict was 0.2 gramme of the drug. No case name was mentioned
C by the prosecution. C
D D
56. I can find at least one Court of Appeal authority on the subject
E which is HKSAR v Cheung Ho Kit CACC 242/2018 [2019] HKCA 557, E
which recorded the fact that at trial the parties there agreed the expert
F F
opinion that the average daily consumption of cocaine per addict was 0.2
G gramme. G
H H
57. In a first instance District Court case HKSAR v Fan Chi Ho
I DCCC 808/2018 [2020] HKDC 478, the expert evidence as to daily I
consumption rate of cocaine is summarized as follows:
J J
K “119. In summary the evidence of Dr Lau is that the daily K
consumption of cocaine is highly variable because the usage
pattern was irregular which was indicative of recreational use.
L Depending on the purity of the cocaine a typical chronic user L
would take between 25 to 50 mg per insufflation and would
M repeat the dose many times a day with a daily dose of 0.2 to 0.5 M
gm whereas a new user may stop after one or two insufflations
and would not use cocaine regularly. A heavy user may binge
N on cocaine up to 2-3 gm in repeated doses.” N
O O
58. In the present case, no expert evidence was called by the
P
prosecution. P
Q Q
59. The evidence of the defendant was that he consumed about
R 0.5-0.6 gramme daily. This is at least on par with the daily consumption R
rate of the typical chronic user as opined by the expert in Fan Chi Ho.
S S
T 60. Besides, in this case, only 10.6 grammes solid (powder) T
containing 8.71 grammes of cocaine was ever recovered by the police. If
U U
V V
- 13 -
A A
B B
the defendant was to lie, he could easily say that he only bought 10
C grammes for self-use, and not 14 grammes as was his evidence. C
D D
61. I found what the defendant said in evidence generally
E including what he said about his daily consumption rate is possibly true. E
F F
62. This will necessarily mean that the prosecution has failed to
G prove their case of trafficking beyond a reasonable doubt. G
H H
Conclusion
I I
63. For the above reasons, I found the defendant not guilty of
J J
Charge 1 as charged but I found him guilty of the statutory alternative of
K possession of a dangerous drug. K
L L
M M
( Isaac Tam )
N N
District Judge
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V