HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1971

LEE CHAU 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
7256-EN-1971-12-23

LEE CHAU v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000841/1971

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 841 OF 1971

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

BETWEEN
LEE CHAUAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 23rd December, 1971.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The Appellant pleaded guilty before the magistrate to unlawful possession of dangerous drugs. He was stopped in the street, searched and found to be carrying one packet of dangerous drugs. He gave evidence that he was walking in the street when two police officers pushed him into a police car, took him to the police station - ostensibly for enquiries - and there planted on him a packet of dangerous drugs. That evidence was rejected by the learned magistrate, who believed that a packet of dangerous drugs was found on him in the street.

2. The Appellant appeals against sentence only: nevertheless, he has addressed me on the basis that he was wrongly convicted and repeated his story that the drugs were planted on him. When asked why he appealed against sentence and not against conviction, he said the reason was that he had previous convictions relating to dangerous drugs. He could give no reason why the sentence of six months' imprisonment which was imposed should be regarded as excessive.

3. He has fourteen previous convictions, five of which were in connection with dangerous drugs, and in my view the sentence passed by the magistrate was a proper sentence.

4. The appeal is dismissed.

 

23rd December, 1971.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Carolan C.C. for Respondent.