BETWEEN THE QUEEN AND CHAN PUN WAI ________________
CHAN PUN WAI
Coram: Hon. Silke, V.-P., Kempster & Penlington, JJ.A.
Date of hearing: 19 May 1989
Date of judgment: 19 May 1989
J U D G M E N T
Kempster, J.A. :
1. On 4 January 1989 Chan Pun Wai was convicted by H H Judge Caird in the District Court of possessing nearly 663 grammes of a mixturecontaining heroin for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. On the same occasion Chan was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment. He nowseeks leave to appeal against that conviction and if unsuccessful, for leave to appeal against his sentence.
2. The evidence adduced by the Crown was not and is not disputed. On 10 October 1988 police officers raided Premises in Causeway Baywhere the applicant and his parents lived. There they found not only the quantity of drugs just mentioned but paraphernalia appropriatefor packaging and storing them and items used in assisting in the actual consumption of drugs. As far as the latter are concernedwe accept and appreciate that the applicant is himself a drug addict.
3. At trial the defence advanced by the applicant, who gave evidence, was that he had had a stroke of good fortune in being able toacquire this large quantity of drugs, let alone the packaging paraphernalia, because the narcotics bureau was at the heels of oneHo Chai who, wanting to disburden himself of incriminating material, had been prepared to sell to the applicant at an advantageousprice. So, albeit there may well have been one or more statutory presumptions upon which the judge could have relied, any such presumptionwas rebutted by this evidence which showed that the applicant was only laying-in a large stock of drugs from which he would drawfrom time to time to satisfy his personal needs. The judge disbelieved him.
4. The grounds of appeal advanced by the applicant in writing and orally really involve a criticism of the judge’s conclusion that whathe had said at trial was not the truth. The approach of this Court to such a plea has been stated only too often. We are not in aposition to retry cases on paper so as to be able to say that a conclusion as to the credibility of witnesses reached by a judgewho has seen and heard them can be faulted.
5. The applicant went on to offer certain criticisms of the modus operandi of those concerned to enforce the legislation against theuse of narcotics. Doubtless they will carefully be considered in the right quarter but they did nothing to advance his application.
6. Turning to sentence, the applicant had nothing to say. Taking account of the quantity involved 7 years’ imprisonment was well withinguidelines which have been provided by this Court. No criticism can be levelled at the sentence.”
7. So little merit is there in either of these applications, both of which we dismiss, that we direct that three months of the periodbetween the filing of the application and to-day will not count towards sentence.
Chan Pun Wai, Applicant, in person
A A Bruce for Crown/Respondent