HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1972

CHAN PUI 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
2181-EN-1972-05-18

CHAN PUI v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000242/1972

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 1972

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

 

BETWEEN  
 CHAN PUIAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 18th May, 1972.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. This is an appeal against a conviction for possession of a dangerous drug for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

2. Evidence was given by a Police Constable that he stopped the Appellant in the street and searched him and that he found in his jacket pocket seven packets of what proved to be dangerous drugs, being 4.2 grammes of a mixture containing 2 grammes of salts of esters of morphine. The officer said that he arrested the Appellant in Tung Ching Road near Lok Sin Road: he denied in cross-examination that he arrested him in Hok Lo Street. The only other witness for the prosecution was concerned with the custody and the analysis of the drugs.

3. The Appellant gave evidence on affirmation and his case before the learned magistrate was that he did not have the drugs in his possession. He alleged that this was a fabricated story told by the Police.

4. That is the substance of the evidence. On that evidence the learned magistrate found as a fact that the Appellant was in possession of the drugs and there was, of course, a presumption by reason of the quantity of drugs concerned that they were there for the purpose of trafficking.

5. Before me the Appellant has admitted that he was in possession of the drugs and now at this late stage seeks to assert that he had them for his own purposes and not for trafficking. It is too late to raise a defence of that kind. I see no reason whatever to interfere with the conviction and the appeal is dismissed.

 

18th May, 1972.

 

Representation: