HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1972

HUI CHAU CHUNG 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
6965-EN-1972-12-01

HUI CHAU CHUNG v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000764/1972

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 764 OF 1972

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

 

BETWEEN  
 HUI CHAU CHUNGAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 1st December, 1972.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The Appellant was charged with unlawful possession of a dangerous drug. A police constable said he saw him standing in the street as if he were waiting for someone: he searched the Appellant and found in his shirt pocket a match-box containing two purplish red packets: he arrested the Appellant and these packets were found to contain dangerous drugs.

2. The Appellant's defence was that no drugs were ever found on him and that he was never searched. He was questioned by the police officer, he says, and it was alleged that he was a drug addict: he was asked if he had taken wine and was told that the officer wanted him to have a saliva test. This conversation was said to have been overheard by another man, who was called as a witness but said he did not overhear the conversation and, in particular, heard nothing about the saliva test.

3. The learned magistrate believed the prosecution witness and said that the defence raised no doubt whatever as to the Appellant's guilt. In my view the evidence was such that he was entitled to come to that conclusion and the appeal must be dismissed.

 

1st December, 1972.

 

Representation: