HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1971

WONG KEI 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
3384-EN-1971-07-15

WONG KEI v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000351/1971

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 351 OF 1971

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

 

BETWEEN
WONG KEIAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 15th July, 1971.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The Appellant was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment for unlawful possession of dangerous drugs. He appeals against sentence. He pleaded guilty and admitted that he had been found with one packet of dangerous drugs in one of his socks.

2. He has been before the courts on twenty-one previous occasions, on most of those occasions for a multiplicity of offences. On twelve of these occasions he was charged with offences under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. He has been put on a recognizance on several occasions and on each of them has been in breach.

3. The learned Magistrate obtained a report from a Probation Officer, which shows that the Appellant has no real desire to give up his addiction. There is a passage in the third paragraph of the Statement of Findings which I am unable to understand and I think it may be that a line has been omitted in typing. However, it does appear from the Statement that the learned Magistrate thought that the short periods of imprisonment which this Appellant had had having proved ineffective what he needed was a long spell in prison, which, as he described it, would give him a chance of "drying out". The Appellant was arrested only a very short time after his last release from prison.

4. I think the sentence imposed was correct and the appeal is dismissed.

 

15th July, 1971.

 

Representation: