HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1985

THE QUEEN v. LI CHEUK

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
40244-EN-1985-04-10

THE QUEEN v. LI CHEUK

HTML content

HCMA000237/1985

MAGISTRACY APPEAL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

NO.  237 OF 1985

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

BETWEEN:-

The QueenRespondent

AND

LI CheukAppellant

____________

Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice Penlington in Court

Date of hearing: 10th April 1985

Date of delivery of judgment: 10th April 1985

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

 

Preliminary

1. This was an appeal against conviction and sentence in respect of charges of possession of dangerous drugs and possession of an instrument fit and intended for injection of dangerous drugs.

Conviction

2. The appellant denied that he had beer found in a refuse room with a syringe and 0.24 of a gramme heroin. I was however quite satisfied that the magistrate had every reason to accept the prosecution evidence that the appellant was so found and that there was no grounds for allowing appeal against the conviction.

Sentence

3. The magistrate called for drug addiction treatment centre report, but that indicated that as he had already been to the centre on three occasions but had immediately relapsed, there was no point in sending him back. The appellant has a long and sad record of petty crime and undoubtedly is drug dependant. The magistrate had imposed sentences of 12 months and 3 months on the two charges to be concurrent and on the facts before him that was unquestionably a perfectly proper sentence. However, when the appellant appeared before me he had in court his mother-in-law and his five-year old daughter. While unfortunately it is probably hoping for too much I decided to reduce that sentence to one of 6 months and 3 months, concurrent, in the hope, vain though it might be, that the appellant would do as he promised and make a real effort to look after his family.

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

Representation:

P.V. Conlon, C.C. for the Respondent/Crown.

Appellant, LI Cheuk in person.