HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1970

CHEUNG SO-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
3288-EN-1970-07-20

CHEUNG SO-KAU v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000342/1970

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 342 OF 1970

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

BETWEEN
CHEUNG So-kauAppellant
AND
The QueenRespondent

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

Coram: Mills-Owens J. in Court.

Date of Judgment: 20 July 1970

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. In this appeal against a conviction of possession of a small quantity of dangerous drugs the appellant advanced before me the same case as he put to the learned magistrate, namely how could he have had dangerous drugs in his jacket pocket when it was obviously so cut or torn as not to be capable of holding anything. In his judgment the magistrate said that: "The torn pocket explanation has now become so common as to be ludicrous, particularly as it is never mentioned till the day of trial, as in this case." This comes dangerously near to suggesting that there is an obligation to give notice of such a defence, but I am satisfied this was not intended. It also appears that the magistrate was in error in saying that the appellant said in evidence that he was taken to the police station in a taxi when in fact the appellant did not say that and was not therefore at variance with his witness as to the manner in which the two of them were taken to the police station. However the evidence was cogent and the points mentioned above do not lead me to consider the conviction to be unsound or unsafe, wherefore the appeal is dismissed.

 

 

(Mills-Owens J.)

 

20th July, 1970.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Lucas (Senior Crown Counsel) for Respondent.

Oral judgment reduced into writing