HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1971

LI WAI LEUNG 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
5113-EN-1971-09-01

LI WAI LEUNG v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000519/1971

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 519 OF 1971

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

BETWEEN
LI WAI LEUNGAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Pickering, J.

Date of Judgment: 1st September, 1971.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking and was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment. He appeals against conviction.

2. This appears to be another case decided before the decision of the learned Chief Justice in LEUNG Lin-luk v. Reg. (Criminal Appeal No. 564 of 1970) was generally known; the charge concerned a mixture containing salts of esters of morphine, and since that mixture did not also contain in the prescribed minimum quantity, the drugs specified in sub-sections (c)(vi) and (e) of s.46 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, it follows that the statutory presumption of possession for the purpose of trafficking contained in the section did not in fact arise. The possession was, of course, at a date before the recent amendment of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance filling the lacuna in the presumption of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

3. The conviction should have been for simple possession of dangerous drugs and I substitute that conviction for the conviction recorded and reduce the sentence of 9 months imprisonment to one of 4 months imprisonment.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Winter, C.C., for Crown.