HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1970

LI YAN WING 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
5007-EN-1970-11-04

LI YAN WING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000509/1970

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 509 OF 1970

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

BETWEEN:
LI YAN WINGAppellant

AND

THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Rigby, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 4 November 1970

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to two charges preferred against him of possession of a dangerous drug, to wit, two packets containing a mixture of salts of esters of morphine, and possession of equipment fit and intended for the injection of a dangerous drug, to wit, a syringe.

2. Startling though it may be, the prisoner at the material time was an inmate in Stanley Prison. It would appear that whilst the prisoners were in the dining hall a prison officer was suspicious of the appellant and searched him, and found the two packets of drugs and this syringe. The appellant at that time was serving a long term of imprisonment.

3. The learned magistrate very properly regarded possession of dangerous drugs by an inmate of the prison as a serious matter and he imposed a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment in respect of the first charge and 6 months' imprisonment in respect of the second charge; such sentences to run concurrently. I see no reason to disagree with those sentences, and the appeal is dismissed.

4. However, in imposing sentence, the learned magistrate said this:-

"Cases involving drugs in the Colony's prisons are increasing, and are causing concern to the authorities. In this instance, I felt that a deterrent sentence was necessary if the prevalence of the offence is to be arrested."

5. He then goes on to say, having imposed that sentence:-

"Nevertheless, I feel bound to recall that it is now becoming clear, from the cases being brought before the Court, that warders are sometimes involved in drug-taking by prisoners in the Colony's prisons. In the present case it is difficult to believe that without the connivance of some member of the prison staff a set of syringes could be carried about by the defendant in his trousers pocket."

6. I would respectfully associate myself with the remarks made by the learned magistrate. In my view, the facts of this case call for the very fullest investigation. I direct that a copy of this judgment be sent to the Attorney General and to the Commissioner of Prisons.

 

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Stratton, D.P.P. for Crown/Respondent.

Judgment delivered.