HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1972

BUT SAU KAN 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
6817-EN-1972-11-30

BUT SAU KAN v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000734/1972

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 734 OF 1972

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

BETWEEN
BUT SAU KANAppellant
and
THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins J.

Date of Judgment: 30th November, 1972.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The Appellant appeals against a sentence of nine months' imprisonment for unlawful possession of dangerous drugs. He pleaded guilty and said that he purchased the drugs for his own consumption.

2. He has a long record, mostly of drugs offences. These go back as far as 1955. He was fined and sent to prison for periods up to eighteen months and then, in 1969, he was bound over for twelve months. However, before the end of that term he had committed yet another offence. The age of the Appellant is somewhat uncertain. He says he is 60 but the prison record gives his date of birth as 1921, which would make him 51. If he were not a drug addict I would have no hesitation in accepting the age of 60 as being the correct age and, in any event, I think it is nearer the mark.

3. This appeal is in effect a plea for clemency on the ground that the Appellant has a wife and seven or eight children to support. The learned magistrate clearly considered all the relevant factors and I have no reason to disagree with the conclusion which he reached.

4. The appeal must be dismissed.

 

30th November, 1972.

 

Representation: