HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1986

THE QUEEN v. CHAN SENG

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
38939-EN-1986-05-01

THE QUEEN v. CHAN SENG

HTML content

CACC000028/1986

  1986, No. 28

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

(Criminal Jurisdiction)

___________

BETWEEN

THE QUEENRespondent

and

CHAN SENGAppellant

_____________

Coram: Hon. Roberts, C.J., Hon. Yang, J.A. & Hon. Penlington, J.

Date of hearing: 1st May 1986

Date of delivery of ,judgment: 1st May 1986

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

 

Penlington, J.

1. This is an application to appeal against sentence out of time. The applicant was convicted on the 28th August 1985 of the offence of "possession of dangerous drugs for the purpose of unlawful trafficking". He received a sentence of six years imprisonment.

2. The applicant appealed against his conviction but says in an affidavit that after discussion with friends, who were presumably fellow inmates, he was told that he should not simultaneously appeal against conviction and sentence. However, the form which the applicant signed when he appealed against conviction states that if he appeals against both conviction and sentence, one will not have any adverse effect on the other. Although the applicant says he is illiterate, this sort of provision is always explained to an applicant and we are, quite satisfied he must have been aware of it. He chose to ignore it and to follow the advice of his friends. We do not consider that there is any merit in this application to appeal out of time and the application will be refused.

Representation:

Mr Shane Cunningham (D.L.A.) for Appellant

Mr G.J.X. McCoy, Senior Crown Counsel, for Respondent/Crown Prosecutor