HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1976

LEUNG KWOK-FAI 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
5231-EN-1976-07-02

LEUNG KWOK-FAI v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000529/1976

  

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 
  
 1976 No. 529
 (Criminal)

  

BETWEEN  
 LEUNG Kwok-faiAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Pickering J.A., & Cons, J.

Date of Judgment: 2nd July, 1976.

  

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

JUDGMENT

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

  

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to two offences of being in possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. The two charges are in identical words, both as to the Statement of Offence and the Particulars of Offence; they simply read "Possession of Dangerous Drug (sic) for the purpose of unlawful trafficking, contrary to section 7(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance."

2. The particulars are that the appellant possessed a dangerous drug on the 14th February, 1976. The amount of dangerous drugs involved in each was not particularized. This is a procedure which is to be regretted.

3. The appellant pleaded guilty to the two offences and was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment on the first charge and to five years' imprisonment on the second charge. By that time the trial judge had been told the particulars of the amount in respect of each charge. Altogether there were 39 packets of dangerous drugs.

4. Another mistake in the record of this case is that the certificate from the Government Analyst was not included in the court file. However, the Crown supplied us with a copy on the morning of the hearing of this appeal. The amount involved was 107 grammes.

5. We think that five years' imprisonment is too high a sentence considering the amount of drugs involved and taking into consideration the pleas of guilty. It is true that the appellant has six previous convictions, two of which are for simple possession of dangerous drugs, but five years' imprisonment is outside the normal tariff for an offence involving 107 grammes.

6. In the event, we allow the appeal to the extent that the sentence of five years be reduced to one of 3 ½ years' imprisonment which sentence to be served concurrently with the sentence of eighteen months on the first charge, which is confirmed.

  

  

 ...(illegible)
 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 President.

  

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Macdougall for crown.