HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1972

CHAN HUNG 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
5922-EN-1972-11-13

CHAN HUNG v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000606/1972

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 606 OF 1972

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

BETWEEN
CHAN HUNGAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins J.

Date of Judgment: 13th November, 1972.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. This is an appeal against a conviction on a charge of unlawful possession of dangerous drugs. The evidence given before the learned magistrate was that the Appellant was stopped in the street and searched and that a packet of suspected dangerous drugs was found in his pocket. There was evidence that the packet did contain dangerous drugs.

2. The Appellant commenced his evidence by admitting that he gave to the police a false name and his explanation was that that was his own way of dealing with the police. His story was that the police asked him whether he was an addict and he admitted that he was, that he was taken back to the police station and there threatened that he would be assaulted if he did not confess to an offence. He says that he told them he was prepared to confess to possession of opium but not to anything else.

3. The learned magistrate dealt with the evidence with the greatest of care and came to the conclusion that the evidence for the Prosecution was true. There was clear evidence upon which he could so decide and come to the conclusion that the charge had been fully proved.

4. The appeal must be dismissed.

 

13th November, 1972.

 

Representation: