HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1971

TANG CHAM 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
3300-EN-1971-07-15

TANG CHAM v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000344/1971

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 344 OF 1971

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

 

BETWEEN
TANG CHAMAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 15th July, 1971.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The Appellant has filed Notice of Appeal against a sentence of two years' imprisonment for possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. He has come before me contending that he does not appeal against sentence but that he wants to appeal against conviction. He admits that he was told that he could appeal against conviction and that he could appeal against sentence. He has identified his signature on the Notice of Appeal but he asks me to believe that he did not know what he was signing. I am afraid I do not believe him. His signature was witnessed by a prison officer of great experience and I have no doubt that the normal procedure was followed in detail. Indeed, in the very last case a similar suggestion was made by the prisoner but he was forced to admit subsequently that the whole of the procedure was followed with the greatest care and I have no reason to believe that there was any departure from the proper practice in this case.

2. As to the appeal against sentence the Appellant has indicated that he wishes to say nothing. I have read the papers and I see no reason to interfere with the sentence which was imposed. The appeal is dismissed.

 

15th July, 1971.

 

Representation: