HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1978

AU YEUNG YING-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
4778-EN-1978-07-08

AU YEUNG YING-LEUNG v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000487/1978

 IN THE SUPREME COURT

Criminal Appeal
1978 No. 487

BETWEEN:  
 AU YEUNG YING-LEUNGAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 8th July, 1978.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant was found guilty of trafficking in dangerous drugs and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. He appealed against his conviction and sentence.

2. The police, acting upon information, marked some notes and there was a sale of one packet of dangerous drugs containing 0.1 gramme of heroin. The appellant was the seller and a plain clothes police officer was the buyer.

3. There was ample evidence upon which to found a conviction and I dismissed the appeal against conviction. However, the appellant, as I have said, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. This was done because the magistrate was under the impression that the normal sentence for a single sale of a very small quantity of heroin is in the region of three years. This was not so. The normal range of sentence for such an offence is between eighteen months and two years.

4. In the event, I allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent that it is reduced from three years to eighteen months.

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Kumar Ramanathan (D.L.A.) for appellant

Alderdice for crown/respondent