HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1972

KWONG FU 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
6056-EN-1972-11-13

KWONG FU v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000621/1972

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 621 OF 1972.

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

BETWEEN
KWONG FuAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 13th November, 1972.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The Appellant was charged before the learned magistrate with possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. The police laid an ambush on a hill-side at about midnight on 6th/7th August. They said that they saw the Appellant climbing the hill and looking behind him: he was stopped and, presumably with an instinctive motion, put both his hands on his left trouser pocket, although he said, when asked why he did that, that a bamboo had pierced his left thigh. However, inside the left trouser pocket was found a cigarette box containing 46 packets of powder. These packets were subsequently examined and 34 of them were found to contain barbitone and 12 of them esters of morphine.

2. The Appellant's case was that he was walking home from the theatre and that on his way towards a bus-stop wished to urinate, so went up some steps, where he was suddenly arrested. He said that nothing was found on him but that the packet was shown to him when the party reached the motor-car, and part of his case appears to have been that his pockets were so torn that they would not be able to hold the drugs which were alleged to have been found on him.

3. There was clear evidence, which it was open to the learned magistrate to believe, that the Appellant had dangerous drugs in his possession and the quantity was such that even without the presumption it would have been justified for him to find that the drugs were intended for trafficking. The learned magistrate believed the Prosecution evidence and I can see no reason to say that he was wrong.

4. The appeal is dismissed.

 

13th November, 1972.

 

Representation: