Murray-Aynsley CJ:

This was an ordinary case of being in possession of chandu.The offence took place in a sampan near a ship made fast to a wharf.The appellant was not a regular member of the crew of the sampan, but was said to be on board for the purposes of repairing the engine.His qualifications for doing so were not at all obvious.

The only part of the case which called for comment arose from the fact that the appellant, whilst in custody, made a statement and afterwards chandu was found very well concealed in the sampan.Before a case comes within s. 27 of the Evidence Ordinance such part of the statement as is admissible under that section should be proved to the Court.If it does not come within that section it should not be mentioned at all.The formula "in consequence of what the accused said I did so and so" is all wrong and if I thought that the appellant had been prejudiced I would quash the conviction. I do not think that it could have done him any harm in the present case.

Appeal dismissed.