HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1968

TSUI BIU 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
6672-EN-1968-12-13

TSUI BIU v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000708/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 708 OF 1968

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

BETWEEN
TSUI BIUAppellant
AND
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 13 December 1968

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J:

1. The appellant was convicted of unlawful possession of a packet containing 0.1 gramme of diacetylmorphine hydrochloride. The evidence was extremely brief. A constable on duty in plain clothes saw the appellant, whose conduct aroused suspicion. He searched the appellant and in his right hand he found a packet containing dangerous drugs.

2. The appellant's story before me has been just what he told the magistrate - that he was going to inspect some goods which a friend was offering to him; as he neared the floor on which these goods were to be seen, somebody came up to him and arrested him: this person picked up a packet from the floor and said it was the appellant's.

3. The magistrate saw no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the police officer. The appellant's story is inherently improbable and I am satisfied that the conviction was right.

4. The appeal is dismissed.

 

13th December, 1968.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Mr. Duckett for the Respondent