HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1968

WONG KAI YUEN 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
6677-EN-1968-12-13

WONG KAI YUEN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000709/1968

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 709 OF 1968

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

BETWEEN
WONG KAI YUENAppellant
AND
THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 13 December 1968

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J:

1. This is yet another case where the appellant said that he was wrongly convicted because the police framed him. He was convicted of unlawful possession of the usual one small packet of diacetylmorphine hydrochloride.

2. A constable in uniform saw the appellant coming out of a lane. On seeing the constable the appellant turned and ran. He was caught and in his hand was found a packet of dangerous drugs. The appellant swore that nothing was found on him when he was searched, that he was walking along the road and that this packet had been planted on him. He said that he was going to call on a friend. He called the friend as a witness. The friend said that he himself was arrested when the appellant was not present, that he was taken to a restaurant where the police were playing mahjong and that he met the appellant there. He said that the police gave him dangerous drugs to smoke.

3. The learned magistrate believed the story of the police and he disbelieved the evidence of the appellant and his witness. I am quite unable to say that he was wrong. This was entirely a matter for him and the appeal is dismissed.

 

13th December, 1968.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Mr. Duckett for the Respondent