HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1972

KAN KAM KWUN 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
2439-EN

KAN KAM KWUN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000268/1972

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 268 OF 1972

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

 

BETWEEN  
 KAN KAM KWUNAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Leonard, J.

Date of Judgment:

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. This also is an appeal against sentence. It differs greatly from the Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 1972. In this case the appellant was found to have in his possession 48 packets of dangerous drugs. He also had in his possession a relatively large sum of money consisting of ten $10 notes, eight $5 notes, twenty-six $1 coins and five 50¢ coins and in the court below he gave no explanation whatsoever as to why he had this money in his possession in the from in which it was.

2. When he appeared before me he claimed that the twenty-six single dollar coins had been change from a $100 note given to him when he bought the heroin for his own consumption. I asked him why he paid with a $100 note when he had so many $10 notes in his possession and he said that in fact these $10 notes were planted on him by the detective. This was another suggestion which was not advanced in the court below.

3. Under these circumstances, what I have referred to as the "tariff" sentence of eighteen months for possession of a relatively small quantity of dangerous drugs for the purposes of trafficking does not apply. A sentence of three years term in such case as this can not be regarded in any way excessive.

4. I accordingly dismiss this appeal.

 

 

 (P.F.X. Leonard)
 Puisne Judge

 

Representation: