HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1978

KOO TAI 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
5697-EN-1978-07-22

KOO TAI v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000579/1978

IN THE SUPREME COURTCriminal Appeal
 1978 No. 579

BETWEEN:  
 KOO TaiAppellant
 and 
 THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 22nd July, 1978.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of keeping an opium divan contrary to section 35(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. He was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment.

2. The evidence showed that the appellant was the caretaker of a small opium divan which was frequented by a regular clientele of opium smokers. When the appellant was arrested in the divan, four opium smokers were also arrested. They were dealt with by the magistrate at the same time as the case for the appellant.

3. The appellant is aged 61. For many years he has earned his living as a stone cutter. However, he suffered a stroke some two years' ago which resulted in partial paralysis of the left side of his body. As a result he had to find other employment. He has a clear record save for a very minor offence in 1966 and, in particular, he has no convictions for drug offences. His family is in China. He was employed as the caretaker of the divan. He did not own or rent the premises and his wage was $800 per month. The appellant was granted bail by the magistrate pending this appeal.

4. In my opinion, an immediate custodial sentence is not called for in this case. Taking into consideration the age and health of the appellant, I think that justice will best be served if the appeal is allowed to the extent that the sentence passed by the magistrate is to be suspended for two years. And I so order.

 

 

 (Geoffrey Briggs)
 Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Sparrow (K.Y. Woo & Co.) for appellant

Kitchell for crown