HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1973

YUEN KAM WAH 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
7290-EN-1973-12-03

YUEN KAM WAH v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000853/1973

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 853 OF 1973

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

 

BETWEEN  
 YUEN KAM WAHAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 3rd December 1973.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The Appellant appeals against a sentence of two years' imprisonment for possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. The burden of what he has said to me this morning appears to suggest that he thinks he should not have been convicted of possession for the purpose of unlawful trafficking because he did not make a profit on the drugs. The learned magistrate went to some trouble to ensure that the Appellant knew what was meant by trafficking and in the lower court the Appellant admitted that part of the drugs were for his own consumption and part for others. Before me he has expressly said that the part that was for others would be sold to those others at the price which he himself paid. It is clear that the Appellant was guilty of the offence and was properly convicted.

2. He says that some of those in court on the same day were sentenced only to 15 months or 18 months' imprisonment for this type of offence. That may well be. I do not know the circumstances of those other cases and I am concerned only with the present case. The Appellant has previous convictions for unlawful possession of dangerous drugs. The drug which were in his possession on this occasion were 12.9 grammes of a mixture containing 5.2 grammes of salts of esters of morphine.

3. The sentence was a proper one and the appeal is dismissed.

 

Representation:

 

3rd December 1973.