CHEUNG SUT v. THE QUEEN

CACC000646/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.646 OF 1968

-----------------

BETWEEN
	CHEUNG SUT	Appellant
	AND
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 25 November 1968

 

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

 

Huggins, J:

1. The appellant was charged on two charges: one of selling dangerous drugs and one of unlawful possession of dangerous drugs. He was acquitted on the first charge and convicted on the second. He now appeals against the sentence of two years' imprisonment imposed in respect of the second charge.

2. The evidence was that he was found with a packet in his hand containing 1.43 grammes of diacetylmorphine hydrochloride and 1.71 grammes of barbtione. The appellant had two previous convictions of a minor nature which have no bearing on the case at all. Before me the appellant has told a story of which I believe not one word, but it still remains to decide whether this is a proper sentence. The learned magistrate passed sentence expressly on the basis that the appellant was concerned in peddling dangerous drugs. He said, and I accept this, that the drugs found on the appellant would have made up 3' doses. From that fact the magistrate assumed that the drugs were not for the appellant's personal consumption. With respect to him I do not think that he was entitled to draw that conclusion, and it is significant that he acquitted the appellant on the selling charge. He cited in his judgment five cases which I have eventually traced to the Criminal Law Review but in my view those cases do not support the proposition for which he cited them. The first case he cited (Reg. v. Da Silva⁽¹⁾) seems to me to be of no assistance at all. In the second case Reg. v. Allen⁽²⁾ the appellant had 477 grammes of Indian hemp. In Reg. v. Jagun⁽³⁾ there was Indian hemp worth £11.500 sterling. In Reg. v. Dalas⁽⁴⁾ there were 3 1/2 kilogrammes of cannabis and in Reg. v. Warner⁽⁵⁾ 20,000 "pep pills". In my view drugs which would make 31 doses are not comparable to the drugs in any one of those cases. I do not doubt that there is reason for the gravest suspicion that the appellant was peddling drugs, but I do not think that there was evidence which justified a finding that he was peddling. That being so, a sentence of two years' imprisonment cannot be supported.

3. The appeal must be allowed and I substitute a sentence of nine months' imprisonment.

 

25th November 1968.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Mr. Sharatte for the Respondent

 

 

(1) 1964 C.L.R. 68

(2) 1964 C.L.R. 484

(3) 1964 C.L.R. 669

(4) 1966 C.L.R. 692

(5) 1967 C.L.R. 548