HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1971

CHEUNG HON BIU 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
4349-EN-1971-08-06

CHEUNG HON BIU v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000444/1971

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 444 OF 1971

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

 

BETWEEN
CHEUNG HON BIUAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Pickering, J.

Date of Judgment: 6th August, 1971.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to smoking dangerous drugs and was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment.

2. On the appeal against that sentence he claimed that ten persons were arrested simultaneously for this same offence and that of the ten one was acquitted of the charge, seven were conditionally discharged and bound over, one received a sentence of 14 days imprisonment whilst he himself was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment.

3. Counsel for the Crown confirmed, and the original record revealed, that this was so. The appellant has only one previous conviction for possession of dangerous drugs and there is nothing in the Statement of Findings of the learned magistrate to suggest any reason for this discrepancy in the sentence imposed upon the appellant as against the very much more lenient treatment accorded to his eight companions.

4. It is inevitable that the appellant should feel an acute sense of grievance having been in prison since 15th June of this year and still having more than seven months of his sentence to run.

5. Disparity of sentence is not a ground upon which a Court of Appeal will necessarily interfere. See R. v. Richards(1) but in this instance the discrepancy is so very marked that I allow the appeal and set aside the sentence of 9 months imprisonment which will be substituted by a sentence of such length as will result in the appellant's immediate discharge from prison.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person

Keil C.C. for Crown

 

 

(1) 39 Cr. App. R191