Hksar v Chan Man Tai

Cited as:[1998] 2 HKLRD 720
Court:Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:FAMC16/1998
Judgment Date:15 Oct 1998
FAMC000016/1998 HKSAR v. CHAN MAN TAI

FAMC000016/1998

FAMC No. 16 of 1998

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 16 OF 1998 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACC No. 527 OF 1997)

_____________________

Between:
CHAN Man Tai Applicant
AND
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION Respondent

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Litton, PJ,Mr Justice Ching, PJ

Date of Hearing: 15 October 1998

Date of Determination: 15 October 1998

___________________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

___________________________

Mr Justice Ching, PJ

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against a criminal conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs on the basis that a point of law of great and general importance is involved. That point is said to be one relating to an alleged deficiency by the trial Judge in his summing up on lies. It is sufficient to say that the facts were such that the only issue at trial was whether or not the applicant knew that the substance found in his possession was a dangerous drug. The burden of showing that he did not know rested upon him by reason of section 47 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 134. The task for the jury was simply to determine whether or not his evidence should be accepted. The question which it is sought to be argued therefore did not arise. The trial Judge was right not to give the directions which it is contended he should have given as they were unnecessary and may well have confused the jury.

2. The Court of Appeal has, perhaps, as Mr Lee SC suggested, made more of the submission made by the prosecutor on lies than the circumstances warranted. All the Court of Appeal needed to say was that the trial judge was, in the circumstances of this case, right to give no directions on lies to the jury. Any other observation by the Court of Appeal was beside the point, and it might have been better if not made.

3. This application is dismissed.

( Andrew Li ) ( Henry Litton ) ( Charles Ching )
Chief Justice Permanent Judge Permanent Judge

Representation:

Mr Martin Lee, S.C. and Mr Wong Hay Yue (assigned by D.L.A.) for the Applicant

Mr Derek Pang, Government Counsel (of the Department of Justice) for the Respondent

To continue reading

Request your trial