HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1968

YAU CHIU v. THE QUEEN

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR11/1986THE QUEEN v. CHUNG WAI-YIU
  • CAAR12/1986THE QUEEN v. HSU SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR15/1986THE QUEEN v. WU KAM MING AND OTHERS
  • CAAR15/1987THE QUEEN v. LEUNG WING FAI
  • CAAR16/1987THE QUEEN v. PANG CHEUNG KIM
  • CAAR19/1986THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
  • CAAR22/1986THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-CHI
  • CAAR23/1986THE QUEEN v. MA LAI WU AND OTHERS
  • CAAR4/1986THE QUEEN v. LY XUONG THANH
  • CAAR5/1986THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KAM-WAH (D1) AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR8/1986THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
  • CAAR9/1986THE QUEEN v. CHU TAI WAI AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR9/1989THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
  • CACC1000/1976LAI FAT v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC1000/1983THE QUEEN v. LEE HEI KEUNG
  • CACC1001/1979LAW WAI-MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1972LIU KAM-MAN v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1973LO WAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1977TAM YUK-MUI (F) v. THE QUEEN
6394-EN-1968-12-04

YAU CHIU v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000668/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.668 OF 1968

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

BETWEEN
YAU CHIUAppellant
AND
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 4 December 1968

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J:

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of dangerous drugs and was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. The quantity of drugs found in his possession was 0.19 gramme of diacetylmorphine hydrochloride, but this small quantity was apparently found in 26 packets which in turn were found in one packet. It does not appear how this quantity of drugs was distributed in the packets.

2. As the learned magistrate said, the appellant has a long record of convictions including several for possession of, or smoking, diacetylmorphine hydrochloride and he was last convicted on 27th March 1968 and sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment.

3. In his Statement of Findings the learned magistrate said:

"Taking into account the number of packets of dangerous drugs found in his possession, despite the small quantity of diacetylmorphine hydrochloride found on chemical analysis,"

and taking into account the record and other circumstances, that 18 months' imprisonment was a proper sentence. With respect to the learned magistrate this seems as though sentence was being passed for possession of packets of dangerous drugs rather than for unlawful possession of the dangerous drugs themselves. Counsel for the Crown feels unable to support the sentence as it stands and in my view the sentence was unduly severe for the offence which was admitted. The matters which the appellant has advanced in mitigation before me do not persuade me that the sentence should be reduced on account of them.

4. In my view the proper sentence in this case was one of 9 months' imprisonment and the sentence will be reduced accordingly.

 

4th December 1968.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Mr. Evans for the Respondent