HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1975

CHAN YING-HING (FEMALE) 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
2503-EN-1975-05-29

CHAN YING-HING (FEMALE) AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000274/1975

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 274 OF 1975

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

 

BETWEEN  
 1. CHAN Ying-hing (female)Appellants
 2. HO Cheuk-fan (female) 
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

Date of Judgment: 29th May, 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The two appellants were tried with a third person for two offences, 1) possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking and 2) conspiracy to traffic in dangerous drugs. The first appellant was found guilty on both counts and the second appellant was acquitted on the first count and found guilty on the second count. The third person who was tried with the appellants pleaded guilty at the end of the case for the prosecution.

2. The appellants are both women and the evidence for the prosectuion was that they took part in a certain transaction connected with dangerous drugs.

3. Having heard counsel for the appellants and counsel for the Crown, we granted leave to appeal because in our opinion the directions to the jury in the summing-up concerning constructive possession of dangerous drugs were inadequate. We ordered that the case should be sent back for re-trial. For that reason we do not intend to comment on the evidence or the way in which the trial went.

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 President.

 

Representation:

Jackson-Lipkin, Q.C. & J. Chau (Hastings & Co.) for 1st appellant.

F. Eddis (Hastings & Co.) for 2nd appellant.

Stevenson for crown/respondent.