HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1968

CHENG TSUNG 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
6625-EN-1968-12-13

CHENG TSUNG v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000701/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 701 OF 1968

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

BETWEEN
CHENG TSUNGAppellant
AND
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 13 December 1968

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J:

1. This is an appeal against a conviction on a charge of unlawfully selling dangerous drugs. There was clear evidence before the magistrate by a constable who said that he personally handed a $5 note to the appellant and received drugs in exchange. The defence was that the appellant was going to buy dangerous drugs for his own use, that when he himself was still 30 yards away the drug peddler was arrested by the police and that the police then framed the appellant on the present charge.

2. The learned magistrate in a careful judgment considered this story and rejected it. The police were acting upon information received that someone was selling drugs and it was admitted that they found a man in possession of a large quantity of drugs. The magistrate thought it improbable that a man 30 yards away would have been arrested once the police had arrested the peddler.

3. The case turned entirely upon the credibility of the two police witnesses who were at the scene. The learned magistrate believed them and it is impossible for me to say that he was wrong.

4. The appeal is dismissed.

 

13th December, 1968.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Mr. Duckett for the Respondent