CHUNG WUN YU v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000888/1971
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 888 OF 1971
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| CHUNG WUN YU | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Huggins, J.
Date of Judgment: 23rd December, 1971.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. This Appellant was originally charged with unlawful possession of dangerous drugs. Before the magistrate an "amended charge" was submitted, alleging unlawful possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of trafficking. Counsel for the Crown has raised the question whether there has strictly been a proper amendment of the charge and I think he is strictly correct when he submits that this was not an amended charge at all but, being for a more serious offence, was an entirely new charge. Nevertheless I think one must imply that in submitting this "amended charge" the Crown indicated that they did not intend to offer any evidence upon the original charge. That being so, I think the new charge was properly before the court and that the original charge has been sufficiently disposed of.
2. When called upon to plead to the new charge the Appellant admitted possession but denied trafficking and the learned magistrate before whom the case then was accepted the plea. I think that he was entitled to accept that plea upon the new charge, it always being open to a court in a proper case to accept a plea to a lesser charge which is included within the greater.
3. The Appellant was stopped in a resettlement estate, searched and found to have in his possession one packet of dangerous drugs.
4. The learned magistrate made enquiry into his age and decided, upon conflicting evidence, that he was 59 years of age. From my observation he is at least that. He started his criminal career in 1947 with two offences of armed robbery and has since been before the court on 33 occasions, on most of those occasions in respect of offences relating to dangerous drugs. The learned magistrate considered the matter very carefully and came to the conclusion that a custodial sentence was necessary, and I see no reason to think that a sentence of six months' imprisonment was in any way excessive.
5. The appeal is dismissed.
23rd December, 1971.
Representation:
Appellant in person.
Carolan C.C. for Respondent.