HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1976

LEE KAM-SHEUNG 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
4807-EN-1976-06-05

LEE KAM-SHEUNG v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000490/1976

  

IN THE SUPREME COURT 
  
 Criminal Appeal
 1976 No. 490

  

BETWEEN:  
 LEE Kam-sheungAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 5th June, 1976.

  

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

JUDGMENT

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

  

1. This is an appeal against a conviction for an offence under section 3(1) (e) of the Merchandise Marks Ordinance. The appellant was found guilty of being in possession of certain metal dies and punches for the purpose of forgery contrary to the provisions of that sub-section.

2. At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Macdougall, who appeared for the Crown, told the court that he could not support the conviction. This was in view of the fact that the magistrate who tried the case held that the Ordinance provided that "an offence has been committed by mere possession." This is, with respect, not so. In the case of Leung Choi v. Francis Woodley Kendall(1) Mills-Owens, J. held that mere possession was not enough. The Crown must also prove "a present intention to use the instrument for forgery, an intention co-existing with the present possession, although not necessarily an intention to use it forthwith."

3. There was, in this case, no finding by the magistrate that any such intention was proved by the Crown. The appeal therefore must be allowed.

  

  

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice.

  

Representation:

Miss J. Leong (Woo & Woo) for appellant.

Macdougall for crown.

  

  

(1) (1961) H.K.L.R. 649.