HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1974

CHEUNG LAM AND ANOTHER 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
600-EN-1975-04-30

CHEUNG LAM AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC001106/1974

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1106 OF 1974

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

 

BETWEEN:  
 CHEUNG Lam1st Appellant
 CHAN Loi Tai2nd Appellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & McMullin, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 30th April, 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellants, who are husband and wife, were found guilty of being in possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking and were each sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. The court dismissed their appeal against conviction but they also appealed against their sentences.

2. This was a bad case, but it is safe to say that the part the appellants took in the drug trafficking was that of storekeepers. There were found in their possession something like 30,000 grammes of dangerous drugs. The first appellant, the husband, is aged 63, his wife is aged 63. The first appellant is very nearly totally blind and the second appellant, as his wife, may be said to be very much under the influence of her husband. We think that seven years is a very heavy sentence for somebody so afflicted as is the first appellant and we do not think that the learned trial judge gave sufficient weight to this point. Counsel for the appellants, when addressing the court made it quite clear that there is no doubt at all that the first appellant is nearly totally blind, though this was not fully apparent in the court below.

3. In the circumstances, we think it right to reduce the sentences in each case to one of five years' imprisonment and we order accordingly.

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

P. Yu (Woo, Kwan, Lee & Lo) for appellants.

Carolan for respondent.