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
6674-EN-1972-11-27

CHAN HUNG v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000708/1972

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 708 OF 1972

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

 

BETWEEN  
 CHAN HUNGAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 27th November, 1972.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The Appellant appeals against a sentence of six months' imprisonment for unlawful possession of dangerous drugs. He had 0.2 gramme of salts of esters of morphine.

2. His argument on the appeal has been that although he has a long criminal record he has made an effort to go straight and that upon his last release from prison a friend offered him a job to start next month. The Appellant has indeed a bad record and the only thing that can be said for him is that the last conviction under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance was in 1966. He assured the learned magistrate that he had cut out his addiction to drugs. Either he had these drugs for his own consumption and has not given up his addiction or he is trafficking in dangerous drugs. In the latter case he is very lucky to get off as lightly as he has done.

3. Assuming that he had them for his own consumption I think this was a proper sentence, having regard to the fact that he has not been convicted of a drug offence since 1966 until recently. There is no ground upon which I could interfere and the appeal is dismissed.

 

27th November, 1972.

 

Representation: