HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1968

FAN KAU 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
6632-EN-1968-12-13

FAN KAU v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000702/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 702 OF 1968

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

BETWEEN
Fan KauAppellant
AND
The QueenRespondent

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 13 December 1968

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J:

1. The appellant was convicted of unlawful possession of 8.3 grammes of barbitone. A police constable on patrol said that he saw the appellant acting suspiciously and searched him. In his trousers pocket he found 7 packets, which were proved to contain dangerous drugs.

2. The appellant did not give evidence in the witness box but in an unsworn statement he said that nothing was found on his person and that the policeman asked him to pick these drugs up from the ground. The learned magistrate rejected that story and believed the police officer. This was entirely a matter for the magistrate and I cannot say that he came to a wrong decision.

3. The appeal is dismissed.

 

13th December, 1968.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Mr. Duckett for the Respondent