Hksar v Tsang Wai Chung

CourtCourt of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date27 Sep 2006
Judgement NumberFAMC27/2006
SubjectMiscellaneous Proceedings (Criminal)
FAMC000027/2006 HKSAR v. TSANG WAI CHUNG

FAMC No. 27 of 2006

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 27 OF 2006 (Criminal)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM
CACC No. 527 of 2002)

_______________________

Between:

  HKSAR Respondent
  and  
  TSANG WAI-CHUNG Applicant

_______________________

Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ

Date of Hearing: 27 September 2006

Date of Determination: 27 September 2006

_______________________

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

_______________________

Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ:

1. The applicant was convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs following a trial before Deputy High Court Judge Line and a jury. His simultaneous conviction on a firearms charge was quashed by the Court of Appeal and is no longer relevant.

2. The applicant was seen using keys to enter a warehouse where substantial amounts of ketamine, cocaine and estazolam were found. There was also other evidence linking him to that warehouse.

3. The prosecution’s case was that he was in possession of, and guilty of trafficking in, those drugs as a principal offender. However, the applicant gave evidence testifying that he was unaware of the drugs, that he was not the tenant of the premises, and that he had entered them for an innocent purpose.

4. In the light of the evidence, before closing speeches, the Judge showed to counsel an intended direction to the jury on possible liability for aiding and abetting, seeking their submissions. Having considered it overnight, counsel then appearing for the applicant stated that he did not have any submissions to make on it. At that stage, he could see nothing wrong in what the Judge was proposing to say to the jury.

5. The Judge directed the jury accordingly. He told them that if they were not sure that the applicant was a principal because they were not sure he had sufficient control of the drugs, they had to consider whether he was guilty as a secondary party. They were told that for there to be such liability, they had to be sure that another person was trafficking in those drugs, that the applicant knew this and had intentionally assisted that person by providing a place to store the drugs. It is not suggested that that was a misdirection.

6. The ground sought to be argued on appeal to the Court is that there...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT