HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1972

LEE CHI KUEN 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
6550-EN-1972-11-27

LEE CHI KUEN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000691/1972

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 691 OF 1972

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

 

BETWEEN  
 LEE CHI KUENAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 27th November, 1972.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. This is an appeal against sentence. The Appellant was convicted after a trial on a charge of possession of a dangerous drug for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

2. The evidence of the police was that he was searched in the street and two packets of drugs were found in his possession, one containing 12.5 grammes of a mixture containing 4.8 grammes of salts of esters of morphine and the other 7 grammes of a mixture containing 2.4 grammes of barbitone.

3. The defence put up at the trial was that the drugs were planted on him by the police. Before me the Appellant has started by seeking to repeat that defence. When I pointed out that that course was not open to him he then alleged that he was not trafficking. That course is again not open to him. He has not advanced any ground upon which I could properly interfere with this sentence.

4. He has a number of previous convictions, including many for possession of dangerous drugs. The sentence was an entirely proper one and the appeal is dismissed.

 

27th November, 1972.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Corrigan for Respondent.