HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1976

LAU SAI LEUNG 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
4109-EN-1976-05-13

LAU SAI LEUNG v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000418/1976

  

IN THE SUPREME COURT 
  
 Criminal Appeal
 1976 No.418

  

BETWEEN  
 LAU SAI LEUNGAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.A.

Date of Judgment: 13th May 1976.

  

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

JUDGMENT

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

  

1. The Appellant was charged before the magistrate with trafficking in a dangerous drug and there was a second charge - a charge of what the magistrate called "presumed trafficking" but which in fact was "possession for the purpose of unlawful trafficking". The Appellant was obviously under suspicion and an officer of the Preventive Service asked to purchase a packet of drugs, which the Appellant proceeded to sell. Thereupon the officer revealed his identity and searched him. He was found to be in possession of seventeen small packets of drugs. The magistrate passed consecutive sentences of two years' imprisonment and one year's imprisonment.

2. It appeared to me that the total was a little - but only a little - above the normal imposed for this type of offence by a man who had only one previous conviction, that for smoking dangerous drugs. At the same time I questioned whether it was right to give consecutive sentences for these two offences, because there could be no trafficking without possession for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. Counsel for the Crown had a similar doubt and I think justice will be done if I order that these two sentences run concurrently.

  

13th May 1976.

  

Representation: