HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1972

CHENG HON MING 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
7007-EN-1972-12-01

CHENG HON MING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000772/1972

  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 772 OF 1972

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

  

BETWEEN  
 CHENG HON MINGAppellant
 and 
  THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 1st December, 1972.

  

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

JUDGMENT

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

  

1. The Appellant appeals against a conviction for unlawful possession of a dangerous drug. The ground of his appeal is stated to be that there was no evidence or no sufficient evidence whereon to found the conviction, but all that the Appellant had said to me is that he never was in possession of dangerous drugs.

2. I am satisfied that there was evidence which, if believed, justified a conviction. He was searched by a police officer in the street and a packet of dangerous drugs was found in his trousers pocket. The Appellant's defence was that this was completely untrue, that he had been delivering rice for a restaurant and that on his way back several police officers in uniform started to chase him: he ignored them but was caught: he was asked if he had white powder and denied it, inviting the police to search him - and he says that when he was searched nothing was found.

3. The learned magistrate was entitled to believe to believe the police witnesses if he was satisfied (as he was satisfied) that they were telling the truth.

4. The appeal is dismissed.

 

1st December, 1972.

 

Representation: