HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal1985

THE QUEEN v. CHAN YUK-KEUNG

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
40249-EN-1985-04-16

THE QUEEN v. CHAN YUK-KEUNG

HTML content

HCMA000256/1985

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Magistracy Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 1985

_____

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

Respondent

 

and

 

CHAN Yuk-keung

Appellant

__________

Coram: Hon. Barnes, J.

Date of hearing: 16th April 1985

Date of judgment: 16th April 1985

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

1. The Appellant was convicted, after trial, on a charge of possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking, contrary to section 7(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. He has appealed against conviction and sentence but I have found no merit in either appeal.

2. Mr. Conlon, who appears for the Crown, has drawn my attention to an order made by the learned magistrate that the Appellant "pay costs to the Prosecution of $1,000 from his cash bail".

3. In his Statement of Findings the learned magistrate said: -

"The Appellant had, in 1984, been "given a chance" by the Court which he had flouted, and had before me run a fabricated defence without merit. I finally therefore considered an award of $1,000 costs to the Prosecution out of the Appellant's cash bail appropriate."

4. As the order, in Mr. Conlon's submission, appears to have been made in order to punish the Appellant for "running a fabricated defence without merit", the Crown does not wish to see it upheld. I agree that the order should be set aside and so orders

( E.C. Barnes )
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr. Paul Conlon, Crown Counsel for the Crown

Appellant in person