HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1968

LI MAN KUEN 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
6571-EN-1968-12-12

LI MAN KUEN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000695/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 695 of 1968

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

BETWEEN
LI MAN KUENAppellant
AND
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 12 December 1968

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J:

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of dangerous drugs and was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. He appeals against that sentence.

2. The appellant was found in possession of the usual small packet containing 0.1 gramme of diacetylmorphine hydrochloride. He had a number of previous convictions but only one under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. On 9th May this year he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

3. He has merely repeated before me what he said to the learned magistrate, that he had a mother who required his assistance. Before the learned magistrate the mother apparently spoke up and said: "My son is no good. He is a liar.", as a result of which the learned magistrate attached little weight to the appellant's assertion that he had to assist his mother. In the circumstances I see no reason to think that 9 months was other than a perfectly proper sentence.

4. The appeal is dismissed.

 

12th December, 1968.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Mr. Evans for the Respondent