HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1971

CHAN MOU SHING 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
3121-EN-1971-06-30

CHAN MOU SHING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000329/1971

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 329 OF 1971

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

 

BETWEEN
CHAN MOU SHINGAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 30th June, 1971.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The Appellant was charged before the Magistrate with possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. Upon his trial a plea of guilty to unlawful possession of dangerous drugs was accepted. He was sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment and now appeals against that sentence. The burden of his argument is that others who have been convicted of similar offences have been given lesser sentences even though, like the Appellant, they had previous records.

2. I am not going to express any opinion as to the correctness of the sentences to which he is referring: I am concerned only with the sentence on the Appellant. The sentence is certainly not entirely inconsistent with the general trend of sentences imposed for this offence and all I am concerned to enquire is whether 9 months' imprisonment was justified for the offence committed by the Appellant.

3. He was found in possession of 5 packets of dangerous drugs, which were concealed in his under-pants. He has been before the courts on 9 previous occasions, on three of them in respect of dangerous drugs offences. On two of those occasions he was placed on probation. For offences of larceny in a dwelling he was sent to a Training Centre. The learned Magistrate took the view that the Appellant had had chances in the past and, the Appellant having previously been sent to Tai Lam Chung, the Magistrate thought that the only sentence that he could order in this case was one of imprisonment. I am of opinion that he was right and I see no reason to interfere with this sentence.

 

30th June, 1971.

 

Representation: