HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1977

YUEN CHUEN-KIT 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
1423-EN-1977-04-26

YUEN CHUEN-KIT v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000172/1977

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL1977 No.172
 (Criminal)

BETWEEN:  
 YUEN CHUEN-KITAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & Pickering, JJ.A.

Date of Judgment: 26th April, 1977.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant was originally charged with one count of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking. The particulars of the offence stated that the dangerous drug concerned was "44.3 grammes of a mixture containing 19.9 grammes of salts of ester of morphine." During the trial in the District Court the appellant pleaded guilty to being in possession, for the purpose of trafficking, of part only of those drugs namely 6.7 grammes of a mixture containing 2.9 grammes of salts of ester of morphine. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment and appeals against that sentence.

2. We think that a sentence of three years for this relatively small amount of heroin is excessive. If the case had been brought in the Magistrates Court the sentence would not have been one of three years.

3. Before us the appellant stated that the reason he was in possession of the heroin was that he used it as a medicine for a rash on his body. That was not advanced in the court below and it is a story which we regard with some scepticism. However that may be we think the sentence excessive in regard to this quantity of the drug, the more so since the appellant had previously a clear record.

4. In the circumstances, we will reduce the sentence from three years to eighteen months' imprisonment.

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Sharwood for Crown.