HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1984

THE QUEEN v. WONG MING

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
42677-EN-1984-05-04

THE QUEEN v. WONG MING

HTML content

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Magistracy Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 1984

_____

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

Respondent

and

WONG Ming

Appellant

_____

Coram: Hon. Penlington, J. in Court

Date: 4th May 1984

Date of hearing: 4th May 1984

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

1. This is an appeal against conviction.

2. The appellant, who was unrepresented, has pointed out to me the discrepancies in the evidence given by the Customs Officers who were involved in this operation.  He also points out that the main witness for the prosecution, Miss Chan Fung-wah, who was a member of the Investigation Bureau of the Customs & Excise Department, said that she saw the two defendants, one of whom is the appellant, selling dangerous drugs and that she was at a distance of about 10 ft.  I could well believe that in fact was incorrect and that if she was only 10 ft. away it was highly unlikely that the defendant would be engaged in selling dangerous drugs.   However, I am satisfied that all these discrepancies were clearly and fully brought to the attention of the magistrate by the solicitor who represented the appellant at the trial. The magistrate has been through all the Customs Officers' evidence in considerable detail and was quite satisfied, and I think had every justification for being so satisfied, in finding that the appellant was using the other defendant as an agent to sell dangerous drugs.  In particular she found Miss Chan, who was clearly the main prosecution witness, to be an honest and convincing witness. This was purely a finding of fact and the magistrate was perfectly entitled to come to that finding. The appeal must be therefore dismissed.

3. I am satisfied there was no merit in this appeal and the sentence will run as from today.

(R.G. Penlington)
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr. Christopher Harris, Counsel for the Crown/Respondent

Appellant in person